Mike Law's Blog

Truth: a guide for relativists.

2012-02-01T11:05:00.003Z

Newham Councillor, John Gray (Labour, formerly Liberal Democrat), deserves credit for being the authority’s only blogging elected member. His blog allows us some insight into the inner workings of Newham Council’s administration (albeit in a very limited sense) other than the sanitised and heavily edited Town Hall propaganda that is churned out in the Newham Mag and Newham Recorder editorials. As such, on the rare occasions when he does mention Council/Mayoral decisions, his posts warrant some comment.

Blogging gives a voice to those who have no power and who wish to hold those that do to account. To achieve this bloggers should be allowed the freedom of expression. Sadly for Gray, although he is a champion of free speech, that freedom corresponds to the limits of his own tolerances.

Gray doesn’t like the language I use when I blog about the oddities of some of the Mayor of Newham’s decisions and the ineffectiveness of Newham’s councillors. His view is that I can dish it out but I cannot take it, if someone takes a “pop” at me I rant and sulk. Mmnn… I thought I was just responding.

Gray refers to me as “Big Bad Mikey” and likes to bring up the fact that my hair is cut short. I have responded to this, not because it offends me (as he’d like to believe), but to highlight the not-so-subtle inference he tries to make: big and bad, short hair = skinhead = thug (a term he has used to describe me) = racist.

I’ve written on this blog about the mayor and councillors and I have referred to them as idiots and buffoons. I’ve called councillors lazy. I’ve highlighted where the truth has been bent out of shape and I’ve shown how some councillors get preferential treatment when the mayor dishes out allowances. I leave it to the few souls who take the time to read this blog to draw their own conclusions. And, as I’ve stated before, should anyone highlight what they think is a specific mistake in anything I have written here, I’m more than willing to revisit it to make it clearer or correct it should it be wrong.

In any event, all that addresses how Gray obfuscates to avoid answering questions, so I’ll put some simple questions to him again in the hope they get answered (incidentally, any sitting councillor may answer these questions – in name or anonymously; I’m not fussy as long as we get answers, as long as we get the truth):

Why has the number of scrutiny chairs been cut from six to four during this current term?
How many Mayoral decisions have been the subject of scrutiny since May 2010?
Will the Newham Council/West Ham United Olympic Stadium bid be subject to (public) scrutiny?
What are the benefits of Newham Council investing £40,000,000 into the Olympic Stadium as Newham Councillors understand them?

Councillor Gray, the floor is yours.

Truth (an admission)

2012-01-30T19:14:00.008Z

I am Socrates. Well, I used the name of the great philosopher for three comments I posted on Cllr Gray’s blog. I did so because I couldn’t resist prodding Gray regarding his apparent postmodernist, relativist outlook (foolishly trying to continue Martin Warne's valiant attempt), and I wanted to avoid his usual snide comments. I informed one of his council colleagues that I had done this and said that I would “own up” on this blog.

I started with what is reported to be Socrates’ response to Protagoras’ relativism and I intended to leave it at that. As you will see if you look at the thread, I couldn’t - but I did try to wake him up to his sloppy thinking… to no avail.

But we now know that Gray is a champion of free speech, but only if he can have the names of those who wish to take advantage of that freedom. We know that he mistakes ideas and values for truths, that he thinks his evaluative statements are statements of fact, that he’s adamant that facts are not truths… I could go on but enough of this twaddle.

Why is it worth mentioning? For the very fact that Gray is a councillor and as such should be examining the decisions made by the mayor with some objectivity.

Addendum: It appears that my blogpost has upset Cllr Gray. He maintains that I’m pompous and self-righteous, which may well be true but that still doesn’t address his wonky reasoning.

“It’s Mike’s way or no way” he asserts. I find this absurd, as I don’t advocate a way.

And, for the record, I am well aware that there are other views than those that I hold but that doesn’t mean that I should accept those views as “truths” just because someone else does. I’m more than happy to argue the case for my views.

And that is the crux of Gray’s problem. If he cannot argue his case he resorts to name calling - he cannot help himself.

I’ll be specific. I, along with others, have tried to get some understanding of the reasoning (the “truth”) behind the Mayor’s decision to invest £40,000,000 in the Olympic Stadium. I’ve submitted FOI requests to the Council and asked questions of councillors on this blog in the hope I'll get some cogent response.

The general response is that such an “investment” will be good for the people of Newham; but how? And why? We never get answers.

If Gray and his Labour colleagues are champions of democracy, shouldn’t they explain to the people they represent why, and how, a mayoral decision they endorse benefits the borough?

Whatever the Mayor’s reasoning for spending £40,000,000 on the stadium, that will be the “truth” and that is the truth that should be made public.

Legacy.

2012-01-09T21:44:00.016Z

Selflessness regarding one’s financial wellbeing for the benefit of the greater good is an admirable trait, especially In the current economic climate and, for the most part, is a rarity. So we should acknowledge the sea change decision by the mayor to reconfigure Councillor Paul Brickell’s portfolio. And Councillor Brickell should be lauded for agreeing to remain in post with no financial remuneration. Or should he?

As I reported in an earlier post, Cllr Brickell had announced to a meeting of London Citizens that he was soon to be starting work as Director of Regeneration for the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) and that his new job would not prevent him from continuing in his Newham Council role as the mayor’s Executive Member for Olympics and Public Affairs.

The OPLC states on its web-site that Cllr Brickell began with them in October of last year. His title is Executive Director for Regeneration and Community Partnewrships. His key areas of responsibility are listed as: Regeneration, Equality and Inclusion, Business and Stakeholder Engagement and Arts and Culture.

His Council portfolio was originally listed as “Olympic Opportunities and Public Affairs”, with a banding of 3B and a time expectation of 2 days. This was still in place on the Council web-site in mid-November. On the 27th December I took a look at the portfolio and it has been changed to “Games Times and Public Affairs”. There is no banding and no time expectation but there is the following proviso: “This role is unique and the time expectations of the role are variable/not fixed. The portfolio holder is not claiming a Special Responsibility Allowance”.

The portfolio has been amended to a degree, with overt references to any involvement with the Olympic Authorities removed. [For anyone who may be interested, I’ve included the previous portfolio with the amendments at the foot of this post – changes to the original in bold italics, deletions in red]

So why the change? It is not beyond the bounds of reason to suppose that the mayor and Cllr Brickell had made the decision to amend the portfolio and do away with the allowance to prevent any suspicion that Cllr Brickell’s position with the OPLC and his Council portfolio constitute a conflict of interest. If that is the case, it says much about the mayor’s mindset.

But, whether or not Cllr Brickell receives an allowance for his Council portfolio and regardless of the change of wording, it’s still a difficult task - establishing an argument that supports the notion that there is no conflict of interest. In his OPLC role, Cllr Brickell is responsible for stakeholder engagement; in his Council role he’s the mayor’s key public affairs consultant. So, as the OPLC Executive Director for Community Partnerships, should he need to consult with Newham Council on any specific issue, no e-mail, no phone call, no specially arranged meeting, he can just sit and talk to himself.

It’s hard to fathom, if the “Game Time and Public Affairs” portfolio is so essential, why it has to be taken up by Brickell. There are plenty of new and able members on the Council (Ellie Robinson, David Christie, Firoza Nekiwala, Terry Paul, Gavin Pearson, Charlene McLean), surely one of these would be more than capable. More so as it has now been amended to no longer require an allowance.

It’s trust. Trust and patronage and political manoeuvring. The fact that the mayor’s cadre of advisors has changed very little from 2002 illustrates that he is only prepared to offer a cardinal’s hat to those who are close to him and those who serve without question.

It’s safe to say that, for the most part, it is well established that mayoral portfolios have next to no real value (as highlighted here, here and here,) and, although this latest play with words has seen the removal of a large allowance (a trend that one can only hope spreads across the entire pantheon of portfolios), it is a graphic example of how nonsensical mayoral portfolios are.

However, taking into consideration the mayor's ambitions to ensure his bid for influence over the future of the Olympic Stadium go to plan (albeit a costly influence), having a mayoral advisor sitting as an executive director on the OPLC (potentially Newham Council's future partner in the stadium) may be a very attractive proposition.

Were this any other local authority I doubt if Brickell would have been able to remain an elected member without some vociferous opposition, let alone stay on as a mayoral advisor – effectively, nothing less than a member of the Executive.

So why would Cllr Brickell go along with this. I doubt it has anything to do with money. Judging by the contracts the OPLC Chief Executive and Finance Director have with the organisation, I would hazard a guess that Brickell has similar contractual terms in relation to his period of employment. I don’t doubt that Brickell has ambitions to further his political career (and why shouldn’t he?) and I have been told that among some circles within Newham Labour he’s seen as Wales’ heir apparent. Spending another six years on the Council as a lowly back-bencher after many years as a member of the executive doesn’t look too good on the political CV.

Incidentally, at the time of writing this, Brickell has four mentions on the OPLC web-site. One provides a brief biography. Surprisingly, nowhere on the site does it mention he’s currently a sitting Newham councillor with an executive portfolio.

The Portfolio:

Role:

The primary purpose of this remit is to ensure that the appropriate legacy and opportunities for Newham residents arising from the Olympics and Paralympics is identified and maximised.

- Changed to:The primary purpose of this remit is to ensure an excellent Games Time, for the benefit of Newham residents

To have oversight of the Olympic and Paralympic games: the vision, strategy and offer leading up to the games, at games time and the legacy. - Removed.

To use the opportunities afforded by the Games over the next two years to identify and work with potential inward investors who are seen as an appropriate fit in Newham. - Removed.

Support the Mayor in public affairs work. - Remains.

Priorities:

Olympic and Paralympic games: - this Sub-heading changed to Games Time.

To build and maintain appropriate relationships with the five host boroughs and key Olympic bodies (the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, the Olympic Park Legacy Company and the Olympic Delivery Authority). – Removed.

To ensure a successful games time (including asset maximisation, inward investment and, working with the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Strategic Planning, to ensure technical and operational readiness).

– Changed to:To ensure a successful Games Time (including working with the Member for Environment and the Member for Regeneration and Strategic Planning, to ensure technical and operational readiness).

To ensure a successful Games time experience for Newham residents. – Remains.

To seek to develop a broad political agreement over the nature of the inward investment which should be targeted over the next two years – Removed.

To support the Mayor with the Cultural Olympiad. – Removed.

To guide sporting, cultural and volunteering opportunities and events provided in the lead up to and during the Games. – Remains.

Using the Games to generate appropriate inward investment to Newham: [this section has been removed]

To develop and deliver a clear and agreed vision, strategy (including prospectus) and offer for inward investment to the borough. – Removed.

To effectively promote investment opportunities in Newham. – Removed.

To effectively promote social enterprise in the borough and to work with Cabinet Members and partners to identify opportunities and networks. – Removed.

To work effectively with other Cabinet Members to drive forward benefits for Newham residents. - Removed.

Public affairs: [this section remains]
to support the Mayor in building and maintaining strong relationships with relevant and appropriate local, regional, national and international groups. – Remains.

To promote Newham’s vision through effective networking and lobbying for the benefit of residents.- Remains.

Special arrangement: [this section has been removed]

To advise the Mayor and Executive Member for Health on strategic health relationships. – Removed.

To advise the Mayor and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People on the strategic development of the BSF programme and the potential benefits from the relationships with the LEP. - Removed.

Regular activities: [this section remains]

To monitor workload and performance against targets in agreement with the Mayor and to provide regular activity updates to the Mayor. - Remains.

To communicate with officers by mutually agreed methods to ensure timely and appropriate political direction. - Remains.

To work with the Community Executive and Community Lead Councillors to ensure an understanding of community views and to ensure that they are represented in this portfolio remit. - Remains.

To speak at appropriate conferences and events as appropriate. - Remains.

To attend scrutiny commissions as necessary to inform on appropriate policies and activities and advise the Mayor on specific responses as and when necessary. - Remains.

To ensure full answers are given to all appropriate questions to Council/the Mayor is able to respond on all reports to Cabinet/Mayoral proceedings - Remains.

A response of sorts...

2011-12-23T22:42:00.009Z

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.

Repeating an invitation to respond.

2011-12-22T22:44:00.004Z

I’m pleased to see that Councillor Gray is aware that my blog is once again up and running, so I repeat my invitation to him to address any or all of the observations I’ve made regarding a number of decisions made by the Mayor of Newham as recorded on this blog. As I stated previously, I am particularly interested in Councillor Gray’s take on the Mayor’s determination to put £40,000,000 of Newham Council funds into the Olympic Stadium (be it by way of a loan procured to fund the project or directly from Council funds).

I’ll admit that I find it somewhat peculiar that Council Gray, an enthusiastic blogger, doesn’t report on Council business. He must be an advocate of openness and transparency in government (national and local) as he was a long-time member of the Liberal Democrats (having previously stood as a Lib Dem candidate in Newham) and he is now a born again Labour Party Member – putting aside any criticisms one may have about either party, it must be acknowledged that both organisations support accountable governance.

If the current mayor’s policies and decisions can stand up to scrutiny and are beneficial to the people of Newham, I would have thought that Councillor Gray would be only too keen to inform his constituents, and the wider world, of their merits.

Finally, as a direct note to Councillor Gray: I have no idea what you are referring to when you state “…he's already pretending to be the very thick and stupid illiterate anon who makes obscene comments”. I’ve not submitted any anonymous comments to your blog; why would I? Think about it. I’m trying to get you to openly and publicly respond to my criticisms of the current Town Hall administration, how would an abusive and unintelligent contribution to the comments on your blog achieve that? I suspect that this is another angle on your desire to label me a bully and a thug. I wonder what it is that makes you believe that any unsupported statement made by you must be taken at face value as a fact, and yet should someone whom you view as a Tory-Trot (or is it a Trot-Tory) makes a comment you dislike or disagree with, you cry liar.

Why this blog was closed and why it is now re-opened.

2011-12-20T21:28:00.007Z

I’ve had a number of phone calls and e-mails asking why I closed this blog so I thought it only right to state here, on the blog, why I made that decision.

The purpose of the blog is to examine a number of decisions made by the Mayor of Newham, and ratified by the Council, that warrant scrutiny but have not been subjected to any by means of the legislative mechanism available to elected members to do so; namely, Overview and Scrutiny. And I had hoped that some form of scrutiny by anyone and everyone who cares would take place by way of comment on this blog.

I also thought that the blog might well be a useful tool for Newham Council employees to voice their views regarding the direction the current mayor is steering the authority.

Finally, I intended to open up a debate about the current mayor’s style of leadership, specifically his predilection for self-publicity, with a view to studying how such a style enhances or erodes local democracy.

Although I like to think that much of what has been posted here will be of interest to Newham residents and those others who have a modicum of curiosity about how Newham is governed, my intended audience is Newham councillors, especially those councillors elected for the first time in 2010.

Bringing those strands together I made the decision to close the blog because, having covered a number of mayoral decisions that warrant discussion, no sitting councillor has had the courage to address the issues raised. Furthermore, I rely considerably, but not exclusively, on information passed on to me by council employees. Of late, most of those who had been the source of reliable (and verifiable) material have made the decision to protect their jobs rather than risk all by feeding me further information: the fear of being “found out” and suffering the resultant admonishment outweighs any desire to blow the whistle.

The issues around mayoral decisions posted on this blog to-date have been covered to their fullest extent; that is, as much as can be pursued without further input from others – preferably elected members. There are one or two other subjects regarding the current mayoralty that I am currently investigating but any meaningful disclosure of those is some way off and I see little purpose in maintaining a blog with nothing other than the promise of more to come.

I thought it best to leave the blog as it stands and, with a little tidying up, it may well turn out to be something of a useful reference resource for any person or organisation intending to stand in the next local elections.

It will come as no surprise that I am more than a little disappointed that no Newham councillor has the confidence to offer any defence of their collective support for the mayor’s decisions without subjecting them to open debate or scrutiny.

However, the Council’s only other vox populi (other than the mayor), Councillor John Gray, has shed some light on where I may have gone wrong. My mistake was my poor use of humour. Satire has always had its place in the lampooning of those in power in this country. My problem is, I’m not very good at it. I threw out humorous jibes (comedy mayor of Westfield etc) in the belief that Newham’s elected members have sufficiently thick hides needed to survive the rough and tumble of elected office, little realising that their skins are gossamer thin.

Councillor Gray makes it clear that I also committed a monumental faux pas in playing with the word “cult”. I thought it was funny, fairly harmless and it linked nicely with the content of the blog-post. A good number of people contacted me reinforcing that view. I didn’t set out to offend. So, if I did, I apologise.

Furthermore, Councillor Gray worries that my posts are too personal – they attack the man not the politics. I would argue that, in Newham, there is no politics, JUST the man. There is very little evidence that anything emanating from the Town Hall is generated from any source other than the will and whims of the mayor. Blame the lack of scrutiny.

But all that is the past. As a result of Councillor Gray’s insightful analysis of this blog, I have decided to do a U-turn and keep it going; stepping things up a notch. I’ll carry on, without the humour and with a spirit of inclusion. I’ll endeavour to include not just the mayor of Newham, but all 60 councillors in my blog: keeping an eye on meetings attended and voting records; mentions in, and letters submitted to, the Newham Recorder; mentions in the Newham Mag (a useful barometer of who is, and who isn’t, in favour with the mayor); and, where possible, any activity away from Newham… that sort of thing.

So, where to start?

In the same week that councillors backed the mayor’s decision to pour £40,000,000 of Council funds into the Olympic Stadium (without passing on to residents what exactly the benefits of doing so are), Councillor Peppiett, the Mayoral Advisor for Children and Young People, had written in the Newham Recorder that £35,000,000 is needed to provide adequate provision of primary school places for Newham’s children over the next three years. The BBC has reported that the £40,000,000 may not necessarily be procured by way of a loan (as was previously intended) but may well be taken from public funds.

Councillor Peppiett didn’t attend the meeting that voted in favour of the £40,000,000 spend (and thereby didn’t vote for it). Could it be that he was unaware that such an amount (which would easily cover the education shortfall he is concerned about) was going to be spent on a project that has no verifiable benefits? Could his absence from the vote be an indicator that he silently opposes the spend on the Olympic Stadium? Or is it that there is a lack of communication between the mayor and his advisors?

It would be interesting to get some feedback from a Council member to clarify this contradiction.

I’d also like to address some of the comments made about me by Councillor Gray in his blog. Gray likes to refer to me as big bad Mikey and he constantly mentions the fact that I have my hair cut short – he has referred to me as a skinhead ogre in one post. That’s fine, intellectually lazy and shallow, but fine. His inference is fairly transparent: short hair = skinhead = racist etc. He evidently subscribes to the notion that, a lie, repeated often enough, becomes a truth. However, even if it were true, even if I were the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, would that negate any of the points I raise on this blog? Would it change fact to fiction?

Another accusation he makes is that the content of this blog is a fabrication based on paranoia, conspiracy theories, points scoring and personal obsession. As I write about decisions made by the mayor that are recorded on the Council’s web-site, in the Newham Recorder and elsewhere, I cannot see how he can conclude the subject matter is made up; although, taking into consideration the fact that the average Council meeting lasts for little more than 10 minutes or so, it could be that Gray is unaware of the decisions made by the mayor… or it could just all be going straight over his head.

Paranoia: maybe, but it would be useful if Councillor Gray (or any other councillor) made it clear, what on this blog supports that claim. Conspiracy theories: I don’t believe in conspiracies, but I do think individuals and organisations make deals – I’m interested in the private deals made by the mayor with external organisations (and with some favoured councillors); point scoring: I don’t understand this (who’s keeping the score?); personal obsession: absolutely, and I don’t think obsessing about the lack of scrutiny of what should be a democratic system of governance is a bad thing.

Gray states that he likes to point people who do not live in Newham to my blog to illustrate how bad the Tory opposition is in the borough. Although he’s factually incorrect as I’m not a Tory nor do I intend to stand as any form of “opposition”, I’m very grateful that he does direct people to the blog. I trust in the good sense of most people to read what is written objectively. However, I think he takes a terrible risk. It is well known that the mayor likes to control what information about his administration is made public; I’m not too sure Gray is doing his promotion prospects any good by acting as an agent for my blog.

I make an open invitation to councillor Gray (and every one of his 59 Council colleagues) to address and counter the points I’ve raised on this blog (personally, I’d like him to explain what exactly are the benefits to Newham residents of Newham Council “investing” £40,000,000 in the Olympic Stadium).

When I was a councillor, the mayor introduced a concept called “the influential councillor” which made very little sense to me. As an elected member of the Council I had as much “influence” as I required to discharge my duties: representing my constituents, holding the executive to account etc. However, councillor Gray may well be held up as an example of an influential councillor in action as he has most definitely influenced my re-opening of this blog.

THIS BLOG IS NOW CLOSED.

2011-12-11T13:12:00.001Z

Secret Scrutiny: or the strange case of the missing meeting. £40,000,000 Olympic Stadium "investment" under the spotlight?

2011-12-07T12:57:00.013Z

Two weeks ago I noticed a meeting listed on the Council’s web based calendar for Monday 6th December. It was listed as a special meeting of Overview and Scrutiny to be held at East Ham Town Hall in committee room 1. There was no agenda and the page displayed the usual message that the agenda would be posted six days prior to the meeting.

Interested, I checked the page every day and, up to and including the day of the meeting, no agenda was posted. Unfortunately I couldn’t make it to the meeting but I checked the page the next day and a new message had been placed stating that no documents are available for this meeting.

Intrigued I called the Head of Overview and Scrutiny and asked if the meeting had taken place. I was told that the next meeting of O & S would be held on 24th January. I asked again if Monday’s meeting had gone ahead. I was told that the last scheduled meeting of O & S was held on 22nd November. I asked again and was told that the entry on the calendar was a computer error. Long story short, I never really got a straight answer.

I checked the calendar about 30 minutes after my conversation and the entry had been removed. Fortunately I made a note of the web-page’s URL [http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=435&MId=8925]. I checked the page and was informed that the page does not exist.

I went down to the Town Hall this morning and asked the receptionist if she could check if a meeting had taken place in committee room 1 on Monday. After checking her screen, her response was: “There’s nothing currently on the system but that doesn’t mean to say that it wasn’t used for an unlisted meeting. Councillors hold meetings here all the time that are not on the system”.

I don’t accept that the original listing for the meeting was a “computer error”; I called members’ services and asked how meetings get listed on the web-based calendar. It seems that the public calendar automatically picks up on meetings that have been manually inputted in the diaries of various departments etc. So, someone must have scheduled this meeting – there must have been some reason to hold a “special” meeting of O & S. And, someone must have made the "no documents available entry" - it’s hard to believe that no-one checks the calendar and thereby allowing a “non-meeting” to sit on the schedule for over a week, and for a day after it “didn’t” take place.

I also find it odd that all trace of the meeting has been removed. Where meetings have been cancelled or postponed the calendar reflects that:

I’ve been informed that, at the last General Committee meeting (GC) for West Ham Constituency Labour Party, a former Newham councillor asked about the comedy mayor of Westfield’s latest plan to throw £40 million of other people’s money at the Olympic Stadium and members were informed that the proposal will be “scrutinised” by the Chair of O & S. My guess is that (and I accept I could be wrong) this was the meeting to do that. Not that any real scrutiny would have taken place. It’s so that, if quizzed as to whether or not the comedy mayor’s latest lunacy has been subjected to scrutiny, the Chair, scrutiny members, the comedy mayor and his advisors can swear, hand on heart, that it has.

Ain’t democracy grand!

Is the comedy mayor a cu#t? Discuss.

2011-12-03T21:47:00.005Z

Say what you like about our elected members, but you cannot deny they are a loyal bunch. Whenever the comedy mayor of Westfield needs a supporting cast to back his plans to spend large amounts of residents’ money he calls an extraordinary meeting of the Council and, hey presto, they dutifully turn up and vote in favour – no questions asked.

For the comedy mayor, this is without a doubt a major advantage: spending plans rubber-stamped and no scrutiny to boot! When a spending plan goes pear-shape, there’s not the slightest chance of it falling under the spotlight of scrutiny. The catastrophic Newham Council/WHUFC Olympic Stadium bid being a case in point: even David Gold, one of the co-owners of WHUFC, is reported as having reservations about the club moving to the stadium.

And, just try to question a Newham councillor about the pros and cons of the comedy mayor’s bizarre policies: at best you get some groupspeak gobbledegook about future benefits for the proletariat, at worst you get a shrug and “what can I do?”.

Irving Janis stated that Groupthink comprises “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”. In his seminal 1977 work, Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment (co-authored with Leon Mann), the symptoms of Groupthink are listed as follows: feelings of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking; discounting of warnings that might challenge assumptions; unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions; stereotyped views of enemy leaders; pressure to conform applied to dissenting, ‘disloyal’ group members; shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus; illusion of unanimity; and ‘mindguards’ – self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions. Any Labour Group members with half a brain (all five of them) who are reading this must be shifting uncomfortably in their seats.

Invariably, all cult leaders rely on the conformity of Groupthink to direct their followers. Let’s see if Labour Group ticks any of the above boxes:

Feelings of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking – The votes in favour of “borrowing” £40 million to fund the comedy mayor’s Olympic stadium dream confirms that one.
Discounting of warnings that might challenge assumptions – The total disregard for the majority of letters that appear in the Recorder asking councillors to explain their compliance with the comedy mayor’s whims.
Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions – I think this goes without saying.
Stereotyped views of enemy leaders – To be fair, I think this applies to the vast majority of members of political parties, whatever their hue.
Pressure to conform applied to dissenting, ‘disloyal’ group members – I refer you to Councillor Sharaf Mahmood’s brief spell as an independent.
Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus – Read Councillor John Gray’s blog.
Illusion of unanimity – When has any Council member questioned, let alone voted against, a mayoral decision?
Self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions – I present to you, Councillor John Gray.

Knowing what we know, has the cult of the comedy mayor set root in the Council chamber?

Gambling.

2011-12-01T21:40:00.012Z

So the Aspers Casino at Westfield opened today. 440 new jobs and, we're told, economic benefits for Newham residents. I understand that Newham Council will be receiving an annual £1 million from the profits made by the casino. I went and took a look at Newham’s latest attraction (I didn’t go inside – I’ve worked in the gaming industry, so I know who wins and who loses). I took some photos:

Taking into consideration the original tendering process for a casino stressed the importance of regeneration, here’s two images of what would have been at the Royal Docks had one of the other bids been successful (I understand this bidder offered Newham £2.5 million a year from the profits):

Compound stupidity.

2011-11-29T23:18:00.004Z

Last night Newham councillors (we don’t yet know which ones) voted in favour of the comedy mayor of Westfield’s latest money-making plan regarding the Olympic Stadium. The Council’s Chief Executive has been given the green light to propose a partnership with the OPLC offering £40 million in return for, as the Newham Recorder reports, “a greater say in how the facility is run”.

The Recorder goes on to state that the Council will “ask that the stadium is made available for community use, including for schoolchildren and sports events, and that people in the borough are given the opportunity to work there”.

All very baffling.

When the OPLC decided to overturn its decision to nominate Newham Council/WHUFC as preferred bidders, announcements were made by Government, the Mayor of London and the OPLC that the stadium would remain in public ownership. It was also stated that the stadium would be run for the benefit of London’s many and diverse communities. So I fail to understand why the Council has to inject £40 million of funds into the stadium to guarantee something that has been promised by those who will be instrumental in overseeing the development of this new public venture.

I would have thought a more logical (and equitable) approach would be for the GLA and ALL the London boroughs to take a share in the running of (and thereby the financial responsibility for) the publicly owned stadium. As a result, each and every London borough will have an input in how the venue is run; all of London’s residents will have equal opportunity to use the facilities on offer, because all of London’s residents will be paying for it. As for job opportunities, it is highly likely that Newham residents will have the advantage if they seek the assistance of Newham’s Workplace scheme.

Of itself, the “investment” is oddly contradictory: if Newham residents have a special case for using the venue and making the most of its facilities, why do they have to take out a £40 million loan to pay for asserting that case –if it’s a valid case it should stand on its merits. If the comedy mayor thinks that Newham residents should have special dispensations (and I see no reason why they should not), surely he could use his not inconsiderable influence to argue the case and bring the situation about, rather than spend £40 million on a speculative venture.

And speculative venture it is. To-date, Newham Council has not provided anything like a carefully considered analysis of the viability of investing in the stadium, nor presented a business plan for Newham residents to consider. Last night’s meeting was held in private, with the press and public excluded, why? Should the project go ahead, the capital invested in the stadium by the authority will be public (your) money; and it will be invested in a publicly owned (owned by you) venture. Where is the need for confidentiality?

Anyone who has observed the comedy mayor’s love of self-publicity and showboating will know that, if this proposed project had any concrete, discernible economic or social benefits, the finer details of it would be spread all over the front page of the Newham Mag and the borough would be peppered with posters trumpeting the comedy mayor’s latest bright idea.

Of course, it is incumbent on elected members to ensure that the mayor doesn’t run recklessly into vanity projects, throwing public funds around like confetti. But we know they do not. It will be interesting to see which elected members attended the meeting. Did any ask that the previous Newham Council/WHUFC bid be subjected to scrutiny? Did any ask about the financial viability of the current proposal? I doubt it.

I can imagine that a fair number of those who did attend will be from the ranks of the newer, younger councillors. No-doubt one or two of these have ambitions to go on to become a Member of Parliament. If I were one of them, I wouldn’t mention my voting record as a Newham councillor on the CV I submit to prospective constituents, as there is very little evidence of putting democratic responsibility above personal interest.

This morning I happened upon a Newham councillor. I asked if they had attended last night’s meeting. They had. I asked if they voted for the proposed deal. They did. I asked what was in it for the people of Newham. “No comment”… in the words of another Newham councillor: “I’ve given up on democracy in Newham.” [said to me during a brief, in-passing conversation at the beginning of the month].

“Scrutiny … holds the Mayor and the Executive to account for their decisions” ~ Newham Council Web-site.

2011-11-24T13:58:00.005Z

Out there in the real world, if an elected mayor had invested thousands of pounds of public money in promoting a joint venture with a local private business (a venture that, although committing millions of pounds of public funds, was shrouded in secrecy because of an alleged need to protect the commercial confidentiality of the financial dealing of the private sector partner), and that intended joint venture did not come about, the opposition (or even responsible members of the mayor’s own party) would call for a full scrutiny commission to examine the finer details of the decision to move forward with the venture. But not here in Newham – or Lesser Westfield as it is more commonly known.

And, looking at the paperwork placed on the Council’s web-site for next Monday’s rubber-stamping exercise, there is one small entry that I would say presses the case for scrutiny of the Newham Council/West Ham United FC bid. As a part of the background briefing, section 1.3.4. states “Negotiations took place between LBN, WHU and LSP [Legacy Stadium Partnership – the limited liability partnership set up by the Council and WHU] over the terms of WHU’s presence at the stadium and their role in the LSP (March 2011 – October 2011).” What?

As Newham and WHU were announced as the preferred bidders in March this implies that it was only after that date that the “partners” decided to “negotiate” the finer details of their partnership. So much for the comedy mayor’s assurances that the football club would guarantee the repayments for the £40 million loan!

Yet here we go again with a slightly different shine to the same old bullshit.

This morning a Newham resident stopped me and asked why I think the comedy mayor is so obsessed with the Olympic Stadium. I think he was (especially as he was going into partnership with Gold and Sullivan), but I think that now he’s scrambling around desperately, trying to find a way to make good on a promise he has made to the Conservative Mayor of London and the Conservative led government; that promise being that the residents of Newham will shoulder a large share of the future financial responsibility of the stadium. No wonder Boris and Hugh Robertson, the Minister for Sport & the Olympics, were so sure Newham would be mucking in.

What price the comedy mayor’s Olympic legacy? £40,000,000 – or so it would appear.

2011-11-22T21:59:00.008Z

Just over a month on from the OPLC’s decision to knock back the comedy mayor of Westfield’s bid to procure the Olympic Stadium, and he bounces back – all guns blazing.

Next Monday, at 5:30 p.m., Newham Council will hold an extraordinary meeting of full Council to contemplate investing a small sum in the proposed public enterprise that will be the Olympic Stadium post the 2012 games. Of course, it comes as no surprise to find that the amount mooted is £40,000,000.

It goes without saying that the meeting is to be held in camera and an exempt report will be presented to councillors regarding the proposal.

The document that is available on the Council’s web-site is of some interest as it is peppered with assurances that the authority will not move forward until the financial viability of any such investment is ascertained.

Interestingly, the document moves in the direction (yet again) of the formation of a special purpose vehicle to allow for a legitimate means to generate surpluses.

All hunky-dory, and one can only keep one’s fingers crossed that the motley crew that is Newham councillors put the proposal under detailed scrutiny.

I’d like to think that, as a part of that scrutiny, they will ask who will act as final guarantor(s) for the inevitable £40,000,000? You’ll recall that West Ham United FC was put forward as the guarantor in the original deal.

The financial viability of the joint Newham Council/WHUFC bid was assessed by a coterie of senior council officers. Maybe our stalwart councillors should question the methodology used and ensure that they have an opportunity to check the finer details of any current viability assessment.

Some of the councillors might ask why Newham Council, one of the more fiscally challenged local authorities in the current economic climate, should make such a disproportionate contribution to a venue that will purportedly have a lasting legacy for the whole of London, if not the nation?

And they’ll do all this in under 20 minutes!

A further point: why is the meeting being held in private? The extraordinary meeting held to discuss the financing of the Newham Council/WHUFC bid was held in camera because of a supposed need for commercial confidentiality (something to do with WHU's finances I suppose); however, in this instance it will be public money going to a public venture, there is no external commercial interest... surely openness and transparency are absolute necessities.

£3,822 an hour…

2011-11-16T22:15:00.002Z

To-date full Council has sat for a total of 4 hours and 16 minutes:

27 May 2010, Annual General Meeting - 45 minutes
12 July 2010, Full Council - 6 minutes
13 September 2010, Full Council - 9 minutes
23 November 2010, Extraordinary Meeting – 5 minutes
6 December 2010, Full Council – 10 minutes
20 January 2011, Extraordinary Meeting - 18 minutes
28 February 2011, Full Council – 38 minutes
28 February 2011, Special Meeting – 6 minutes
28 March 2011, Extraordinary Meeting – 4 minutes
19 May 2011, Annual General Meeting – 1 hour 10 minutes
11 July 2011, Full Council – 25 minutes
19 September 2011, Full Council – 20 minutes

That’s an average of 21 minutes 20 seconds per meeting.

Silence is golden.

2011-10-14T13:59:00.005+01:00

Am I the only one, or do other Newham residents find the comedy mayor’s silence over the collapse of his bid for the Olympic Stadium very much out of character?

There was no talking head interview on either the BBC London News nor ITV’s London Tonight, no contribution to any of the capital’s radio talk shows and, most surprisingly, nothing in the front and back page coverage in the Newham Recorder.

From the little information that has been made public regarding the collapse of the Newham Council/West Ham bid, it is possible to extrapolate any number of theories as to what went wrong. I think the truth (and a truth that makes sense of the comedy mayor’s reticence) lies somewhere in-between two extremes.

At one end of the realm of possibilities is the likelihood that this new twist is a clever device for neutralising Tottenham Hotspur’s and Leyton Orient’s judicial reviews while still giving WHUFC access to the stadium.

By overturning the decision that made Newham/WHU the successful bidders the OPLC has, to the minds of many people, negated the need for Spurs and Orient to continue with a costly and time consuming legal process.

The more I saw of this strange event unfolding in the media, the more I started to think that a new deal had been done between the OPLC, the Mayor of London and the government and the Newham/WHU partnership; after all, how could Boris and Ed Warner (Chairman of UK Athletics) claim with certainty that West Ham will be the tenant of the publicly owned stadium? I was even more convinced when I saw Hugh Robertson, The Minister for Sport & the Olympics, state on the BBC London News that “there is no reason whatsoever, now we’re doing a public-to-public deal, why the local authority should not come in in just the same way they were planning to come in before and, indeed, I think they’ve already said they’re interested in doing that”. The BBC reporter responded by saying that Newham Council had denied this, poor old Hugh looked like he’d been punched in the stomach.

A joint statement by Karren Brady, West Ham vice-chairman, and Kim Bromley-Derry, Newham chief executive, included the following: “If the speculation is true, West Ham will look to become a tenant of the stadium while Newham will aim to help deliver the legacy.” My immediate thought was that Newham Council will still be ploughing money into the stadium. It may not be the proposed £40 million but, if the Council is considering making a financial contribution, the question is why? The stadium will be London’s stadium (if not the nation’s), so one would rightly expect the other London boroughs and the GLA (at the very least) to make equal contributions to Newham’s.

At the other extreme, the mysterious anonymous complaint to the European Commission may be the real spanner in the works. The OPLC, the government and Newham Council have all stated that the uncertainty of continuing legal complications had prompted the latest decision. If that were true, the plug would have been pulled weeks ago. I think the OPLC, government and Newham had, until the EC complaint, been fairly confident that the judicial reviews were not going to be a problem. However, a European tribunal looking at the details of Newham’s loan may well come to the conclusion that it is state aid. I have a hunch that Newham’s new Executive Director for Resources, Chris Pope, has come to the same conclusion. That, and the fact that, should the stadium be used for the World Athletics Championships in 2017, Newham Council wouldn’t have seen any funds covering the repayments for the projected £40 million loan until well after 2018. Hence Newham’s letter to the OPLC stating that it could not maintain a commitment to achieving conversion of the stadium by the Summer of 2014.

If I were the comedy mayor, I’d go and hide in a hole too.

"For just when ideas fail, a word comes in to save the situation" ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

2011-10-13T23:25:00.006+01:00

Remember the plight of poor Councillor Hudson? He lost his job, so the kindly comedy mayor put some extra money in his pocket by raising his mayoral allowance by £16,554 a year. Councillor Hudson’s portfolio has been amended in an attempt to justify the extra money. It appears that an additional 195 words have been added to the portfolio (one was removed) which gives each additional word a value of £86 per year.

Here’s the portfolio in full (additions in red text – removed word is in brackets):

Role:

To take strategic lead for finance, property, assets and support services – including Human Resources, Legal and ICT.

Following the national Spending Review, to drive forward Newham’s most challenging ever efficiency savings across this significant portfolio.

To support the Mayor’s/Cabinet responsibilities on:

Annual Council Tax and Budget Strategy
Medium Term Financial Strategies
Asset and Property Management Planning and Strategy
Risk Management Strategy
Counter Fraud Strategy
Audit Plan
ICT Infrastructure
Information Management
Data Quality and Security
Corporate Procurement Strategy
Human Resources Strategy

Effective management of the Council’s financial resources, including property and assets [management] to enable continued delivery of Council services, income maximisation and achievement of corporate and service priorities.

Give political direction to officers working within the portfolio, providing leadership in the implementation of portfolio programmes and working closely with relevant directors and officers to develop policy documents.

Provide representation for the portfolio; be a figurehead in meetings with stakeholders; report as appropriate to the Mayor and Council and be the principal spokesperson for the portfolio.

Have an overview of performance management, efficiency and effectiveness of the portfolio; negotiate and broker in cases of differing priorities and disagreement.

Priorities:

To ensure that Council Tax is affordable and that resources are used effectively.

Following Newham’s most challenging financial settlement – to effectively lead and forward plan.

To drive forward ICT efficiencies and improvements.

To drive forward HR efficiencies and improvements – including oversight of all Star Chamber planning to ensure delivery of cost savings.

To effectively lead on the financial management, risk management and income maximisation of the 2012 Olympic Games.

Effective management of assets and property to ensure they remain fit for purpose and represent value for money.

Effective management of risk across the authority to ensure that relevant risks are properly recognised and assessed within the decision making process.

Effective procurement strategy and operations, including effective contract management, to ensure all contracts represent value for money.

To chair the Audit Board.

The implementation of a clear framework for entering S106 negotiations.

Development of a clear strategy for disposal, acquisitions and compliance with that strategy by clarifying the application of policy in relation to specific asset acquisition and disposal negotiations.

To monitor performance standards in Corporate Asset Management Planning, particularly on backlog maintenance, utility costs, acquisition and disposal.

To monitor performance standards in finance, particularly on cash collection, fraud management, investment and value for money.

Regular activities:

To monitor workload and performance against targets in agreement with the Mayor and to provide regular activity updates to the Mayor.

To communicate with officers by mutually agreed methods to ensure timely and appropriate political direction.

To work with the Community Executive and Community Lead Councillors to ensure an understanding of community views and to ensure that they are represented in this portfolio remit.

To speak at conferences and events as appropriate.

To attend scrutiny commissions as necessary to inform on appropriate policies and activities and advise the Mayor on specific responses as and when necessary.

To ensure full answers are given to all appropriate questions to Council/the Mayor is able to respond on all reports to Cabinet/Mayoral proceedings.

Interesting to see that the activities have remained the same.

I’ll be coming back to this as I’ll be looking through the other portfolios to see if there is any overlap (if there is, I’ll suggest to the mayor’s office that any overlapping portfolio should have its corresponding allowance reduced by £86 per word in each overlapping role or priority).

I’ll also try to make an analysis of councillor Hudson’s effectiveness in following through on his new priority of ensuring all contracts represent value for money; bit odd that this is a new priority, I would have thought it’s essential… I wonder, what was going on before councillor Hudson was instructed to keep an eye on the Council’s contracts?

Ship of fools.

2011-10-11T22:37:00.006+01:00

Even though it's common knowledge that the Newham Council/WHUFC bid to take control of the Olympic Stadium is now no longer on the cards, it may be the time to make a brief examination as to how, through a lack of scrutiny and a refusal to ask very simple questions, the ineptitude of Newham’s councillors failed to nip the fiasco in the bud.

I’ve posted elsewhere on how the partnership between Newham Council and WHUFC appeared to be biased in the club’s favour. What is worth taking into consideration is the form of the business partnership both parties agreed to enter into. When it was announced that the Council and the club entered into a limited liability partnership, I wondered why they had opted for a partnership rather than form a limited company.

A quick trawl of Internet sites offering to assist in the formation of limited liability partnerships answers my question. Here are some of the advantages of a LLP as listed on one site:

“An LLP would be wise to have a partnership agreement to set out the agreement between the members, but it is not necessary. The LLP does not file any form of constitution. The members can agree profit sharing or other arrangements amongst themselves verbally and change those arrangements as often as they agree.” and, “The LLP must file financial statements at Companies House. These can be so abbreviated that they tell an outsider very little about the business”.

And here’s the wording from another:

“There is nothing in the provisions to prevent a limited company being a partner. This opens up interesting possibilities for joint ventures and profit sharing. For example, in the claw back of tax losses, the partnership agreement could specify that the corporate partner should take the first £000 of profit, and a second partner the remainder.” And, “The benefits of a limited liability partnership against a limited company may be:
Less public scrutiny because the partnership agreement remains confidential;
Easier manipulation of shares between partners;
Easier changes of membership;
No administration relating to the issue and allotment of shares”.

Little wonder that, in the early 1990’s, the Channel Islands authorities were lobbied by international firms of accountants and bankers to pass limited liability partnership legislation. The Blair New Labour government succumbed to the same lobbying in 2000.

On learning of this lack of transparency, I wrote to the Information Commissioner (e-mail enquiry sent 29th September) requesting conformation on what type of Freedom of Information requests could be put to such a partnership, considering the fact that one of the partners already falls within the remit of the FOI Act.

I was also going to write to Newham Council to ask why it chose to enter into a limited liability partnership rather than forming a limited company. I was also going to ask about the capitalisation agreement and profit sharing arrangements made with its partner, WHUFC.

But, the truth is, I shouldn’t have to do this. All this information should have been garnered by the councillors that sit in the Council Chamber and they should have ensured that it was made public knowledge. Those same councillors have a duty to protect the interests of the people of Newham and I think that, by failing to get a grip on this comedy of errors, they have failed in that duty.

Still, never mind. It’s all over now… or is it? There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not Newham Council will still stump up £40 million to bail out, sorry I mean support, Boris’ new Special Purpose Vehicle that will now run the stadium (let’s hope it’s not another limited liability partnership). The Minister for Sport & the Olympics, Hugh Robertson, claimed on the BBC London News that Newham Council will come in on the deal as it will be a "public-to-public" loan(?).

I cannot see how that will work. What it would mean is that one of the most impoverished local authorities in the country will borrow money to lend back to the government to assist in the up-keep of a venue that is supposedly protecting the Olympic legacy for the nation. Rob from the poorest and give to… everyone else. Nonsense!

Should it start to look like this odd transaction may take place, it’s Newham councillors’ job to make sure this kind of bullshit doesn’t happen. So my suggestion to all those Newham councillors who are not in receipt of a mayoral allowance is to take a deep breath, find your backbone and for the love of all things decent start asking those questions, checking that documentation and wake up to the fact that the mayor didn’t elect you. If you cannot do that, stand down, And stand down now.

Too big to fail?

2011-10-07T22:45:00.005+01:00

A contributor to the comments on an earlier post has kindly provided some interesting figures regarding Newham’s finances (thanks Martin) that may shed some interesting light on the comedy mayor of Westfield’s latest plans for world domination.

As I’ve previously mentioned, the comedy mayor is looking to branch out into the private rented accommodation business. The Newham Recorder (page 14) has reported that he’s looking to invest in 4,000 properties and repeated the mayor of Westfield’s quote that the Council can borrow at “a very good rate”.

The Recorder has also reported that property prices in Newham are falling (page 7), stating that houses can be purchased in Plaistow for £160,000. Using that figure as an estimated average price for the borough, buying up 4,000 properties will cost £640 million.

The Financial Times stated that the comedy mayor will have to go into partnership with another organisation, via another special purpose vehicle, to be able to enter into private tenancy agreements.

One hopes that the partner will do more than just provide management and administration services and contribute most of the funds needed for the enterprise, although the comedy mayor’s track record to-date doesn’t instil much confidence.

His SPV partnership with West Ham United FC is heavily geared in the club’s favour. To obtain the £95 million priced lease on the Olympic Stadium, the Newham Council/WHUFC partnership needs to find £60 million (£35 million being provided by way of a grant from the Olympic Delivery Authority). It is well documented that Newham Council will provide £40 million leaving WHUFC to find the remaining £20 million (it has been suggested that Westfield would cover WHUFC £20 million cost in exchange for the naming rights of the stadium but that has not been confirmed).

The partnership between the club and the authority is an equal 50/50 split. This no doubt means that the club will be receiving 50 percent of all profits from the venture, which should include the money the club pays to the partnership for using the stadium on match days. Not a bad deal.

If the comedy mayor gets into the same kind of deal with his new partners in his housing venture, a £640 million loan will be a 54 percent increase to the Council’s current £1,186 million external borrowing debt. Even if the partnership turns out to be a genuine 50/50 arrangement, with the partners stumping up half the finance, he’ll still be increasing borrowing by a quarter.

He’s always banging on about how much the stadium partnership is good for the people of Newham, London and the Country. Yet, to-date, he’s failed to provide any figures that qualify this claim. I wonder if there will be any difference in the way he spins this latest venture if it actually gets off the ground. It appears the comedy mayor of Westfield (formerly Newham) is the only great leader not worried about increasing public debt... just as well he's not the one paying it back.

"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field" ~ Niels Bohr

2011-10-04T22:15:00.003+01:00

It appears that the comedy mayor’s consultation on the introduction of selective licensing for private sector landlords may need a little tweaking. Solicitors Anthony Gold have an interesting analysis on their web site.

The firm of lawyers is of the opinion that Newham Council hasn’t followed the government guidance on what is required of such a consultation. Among the charges set out is that Newham Council’s consultation has “Loaded questions with no explanation of the meaning”; now, there’s a surprise.

The analysis is also critical of Newham’s plan for operating the scheme: “Newham state that they intend to charge one fee for landlords who licence early and a “penalty” fee of nearly ten times that sum for those landlords who have been prosecuted for failure to have a licence. It seems inappropriate for Newham to levy these penalties when there is already a perfectly proper system of prosecuting landlords who fail to get licences with fines levied by the magistrates court. This allows the landlord to defend the matter and to produce a plea of mitigation. The Housing Act 2004 also requires that Newham can only levy charges that reflect the costs of running the scheme. Newham will no doubt say that they are only charging what it costs them but are loading the cost onto those who cause then the most problems. However, they will need to show that the balance is fair and is a genuine reflection of the different costs of licensing landlords who have and have not been prosecuted. This might be hard for them to do”. Oh dear.

Another day at the office for the comedy mayor of Westfield. Remember, this is the mayor that promises transparency, efficiency and an end to waste.

You lucky people...

2011-10-03T14:24:00.003+01:00

Earlier today I took a call from a Labour Party member from South London whom I’ve known for many years. She alleged that the comedy mayor attended an event at this year’s Labour Party conference that was geared to encouraging members to stand for elected office.

She also alleged that during the event the mayor of Westfield told those assembled that, were he a captain of industry he wouldn’t employ Council staff as they are inherently lazy but he’d jump at the chance to take on any of the current batch of elected members as they are all hard working.

She went on to say that later in the day he was asked why he stood for mayor for a third term; she claimed that he responded by stating that the Labour Party in Newham has yet to produce a member of sufficient calibre to fill his shoes.

Now, I’ve heard the comedy mayor come out with some audacious bollocks in my time, but I have trouble believing even his unremitting hubris would tip him in the direction of making such remarks; although, it might explain why he favours £2000 a day consultants and why they have been put to the task of looking at ways to cut back on the Council workforce.

So, if there is a Labour Party member out there who can confirm, or refute the above, please do so.

In the meantime…

Mine... all MINE!!!!!

2011-09-30T22:30:00.006+01:00

As mentioned in a previous posting, the comedy mayor is looking to expand his business empire by branching out into the affable world of privately rented housing. In conjunction, The Guardian has reported that Newham Council is looking to introduce a mandatory licensing scheme for private landlords.

What this means is that landlords will have to provide evidence that, among other things, they are “fit and proper persons” and that they can effectively manage anti-social behaviour; the possibility of Criminal Record Bureau checks is mooted, which I think is a little excessive. If someone has a criminal record it’s safe to assume they’ve been through the justice system and have done their “time”, so is it really fair to use someone’s past to prevent them becoming a landlord? And, there are plenty of instances where an individual has committed a crime but has avoided prosecution; for example, an individual may have had unlawful sex with a minor but not have been prosecuted because the victim refused to give evidence.

The quoted cost of a license is £500. The report doesn’t state if landlords with just one rented property will pay the same license fee as those with multiple properties which may, for example, cause a rift between Councillor Unmesh Desai (4 properties) and Councillor Ayesha Chowdhury (16 properties).

However, and in all fairness, I think both initiatives, if co-ordinated, have a great deal of potential. Should the Council enter into a partnership with a private company to establish a private lettings company it will no doubt be one of the bigger players in the borough, if not the biggest. That, coupled with the fact that the Council may well be in the envious position of determining who its competition will be (via licensing), opens up the possibility that the comedy mayor could be instrumental in ensuring that all private sector rents in Newham are affordable and realistic.

But I’ll not hold my breath on that one.

I expect that, should the comedy mayor decide to form a new special purpose vehicle with the purpose of establishing a private lettings company, it will, for the most part, charge market rents. The Council will have to go into partnership with another private company and it’s hard to imagine such a partner would not want to maximise profits.

It’ll be interesting to see how the comedy mayor will spin it. Earlier in the week he was on the London Tonight programme extolling the virtues of his bid to take over the Olympic Stadium - it’ll be good for London, good for the Country; yet he still fails to explain how and why. It all seems more than a little speculative to me… hasn’t the current leader of the Labour Party got a downer on financial speculation?

One for sorrow, two for joy...

2011-09-19T01:02:00.005+01:00

It seems that the comedy mayor is so taken with the SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle – the preferred method for hiding losses and other fiscal jiggery pokery of Enron and Tower Financial) he set up with WHUFC that he’s thinking of doubling his portfolio. The Financial Times is reporting that he’s looking to create a new SPV with the purpose of purchasing homes in the borough to rent out. He’s quoted as saying “We can borrow at a very good rate, so would be able to buy up a lot of houses. To do it properly, you need to do it on a fairly large scale”.

Legally, the Council would have to find a partner as it would be entering into private sector tenancy agreements, which local authorities cannot do.

All well and good, but isn’t this just a rehash of the original plan for LocalSpace with a private sector twist?

With £40 million of Newham Council’s potential borrowing capacity going into the Olympic Stadium venture and a possible £10 million plus ploughed into another SPV partnership, and in light of the cuts in services and staff numbers, one would hope that there will be some robust scrutiny in place…

It’s turned out nice again!

2011-09-17T23:53:00.001+01:00

It’s always heartening to hear of someone’s good fortune in times of economic uncertainty, so I’d like to congratulate Councillor Paul Brickell, the comedy mayor’s executive member for Olympics and Public Affairs, who has secured the post of Director of Regeneration for the Olympic Park Legacy Company. He informed a meeting of London Citizens (formerly TELCO) that his Council portfolio will change post 2012 (no conflicts of interest there then, one assumes); interesting to note that post 2012 mayoral portfolios are already allocated.

This post seems to be a newly created one, as I could find no reference to it on the OPLC’s website.

No doubt Councillor Brickell’s application was successful because he applied via Workplace, giving him the edge over the other candidates… that is, assuming there were other candidates.

The times they are a-changin’…

2011-09-17T23:38:00.007+01:00

Remember those halcyon days when all was provided by the good grace of the comedy mayor? Proclamations of his generosity were to be found on banners and posters across the borough and printed on page after page in the Newham Mag.

But now it’s all change, if the new signage that festooned this summer’s “free” events is anything to go by. Instead of providing for the great unwashed, the comedy mayor is now in the inspiration game; I anticipate a raft of self-help books and seminars on the horizon.

This new message, coupled with the recent announcement made to a meeting of adult social care staff - by the comedy mayor’s executive member for older people and adults - that the Council is going to have to “be cruel to be kind” to residents in need (more on this meeting in a later post), may well be an indicator that the money’s running out. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the stadium legacy company lives up to the promises made and the Westfield golden goose continues to provide safe and secure retail and service industry jobs.

"Public money is like holy water; everyone helps himself to it." ~ Italian Proverb

2011-07-23T22:42:00.005+01:00

Earlier in the year I was told that Councillor Lester Hudson, the comedy mayor’s advisor for Finance, Property and Assets, would soon be leaving his full-time job as Assistant Director of Finance at the Metropolitan Housing Trust. My immediate thought was, should that happen, suddenly (and without explanation) Hudson’s special responsibility allowance would rise from portfolio banding 3A (150 points, £14,488.00) to 4C (350 points, £31,042.00).

I expected this to take place at or after the Council’s AGM. Lo and behold, this week the Summary of Members’ Allowances was amended as predicted. Hudson is on an extra £16,554.00 a year (£318.35 a week) courtesy of the good people of Newham.

I’ve checked the minutes of all the Council meetings, Cabinet meetings and Mayoral Proceedings since the AGM, and not one mentions this change in allowance for the portfolio, and the portfolio listing on the Council’s web-site hasn’t changed.

No-doubt, the comedy mayor will state that the post now requires the holder to dedicate five days a week to it – a stroke of luck that Hudson now has the time. But, the fact that the actual “job description” (i.e. the portfolio) hasn’t been amended, would expose such a claim as bullshit: any reasonable person would expect that the structure and responsibilities of a post would need to have changed considerably to justify such a huge leap in the post's remuneration.

Of course, we all know it’s another case of the comedy mayor playing jiggery pokery with Council money and making sure his close friends are looked after while orchestrating the reduction of hundreds of staff posts … is this “resilience” in action? – “A community where people can rely on those around them for support”.

Damage control and the truth.

2011-07-21T00:11:00.003+01:00

Predictably, a letter appeared in this week’s Newham Recorder, attributed to all 60 Newham councillors, refuting the disgruntled ramblings of the “disheartened councillor” in the previous edition.

Newham’s wonderful, full of dynamic people, we’re working in partnership, we understand and share your frustrations, it’s a privilege to serve, we work hard and we’re always available etc. etc etc.

There’s also the intimation that the original letter may be some sort mischievous prank. As I stated in a previous blog-post, I had trouble believing the letter really was from a sitting councillor. I called the Recorder and left a message for the editor asking if he would kindly confirm its authenticity. He e-mailed me stating: Just got message that you called re councillor letter. Yes it is genuine.

So, was the editor having me on? Or did he genuinely think the letter was from a councillor only to now find that it was a hoax, or, is the refutation from all 60 councillors a hastily penned exercise in damage control put together by the group whip or group secretary in an attempt to avert a potential controversy?

If the letter is genuine AND this week’s letter has been approved and agreed by all 60 sitting councillors, then we know that at least one elected member is a hypocritical coward.

One Newham resident has suggested to me (rather tongue-in-cheek) that the whole thing is a plot by the comedy mayor to keep potential troublemakers on the Council in check. The letter being submitted to the Recorder by one of his minions giving him the opportunity to unleash his wrath on the Labour Group, insisting that discipline take precedent over debate, thus putting a lid on dissent.

The wisdom of crowds?

2011-07-18T23:32:00.004+01:00

On the 10th June I submitted the following FOI request to Newham Council:

1. Which Newham Council officers and elected members (job titles and positions – names not required) were involved in assessing the financial viability of the authority’s partnership with West Ham United Football Club regarding the Olympic Stadium?

2. How is the authority storing any documentation that was used in assessing the financial viability of the authority’s partnership with West Ham United Football Club regarding the Olympic Stadium?

3. How long does the authority intend to keep the documentation on record?

On the 11th July I received this response:

1. The following Council officers have been regularly involved in the assessment of the financial viability of the partnership with West Ham United regarding the Olympic Stadium.
Name
Kim Bromley Derry Chief Executive
Bob Heaton Executive Director, Resources
John Turnbull Divisional Director Finance
Dave Baldock Strategic Financial Advisor
Clive Dutton Executive Director, Regeneration
Nick Williams Head of 2012
Alan Skewis Head of 2012 Venues Legacy
Helen Sidwell Divisional Director Legal and HR Services
Jeremy Appleson Deputy Head of Legal Services
Neil Edwards Risk Manager
Grant Aitken Divisional Director for Leisure
Other officers have been consulted as required, for example on education, planning or construction matters. The project was also reviewed through the Council’s normal processes, including by Executive Directors at the Newham Executive Board.
Elected members were involved in the decision making at the Council meeting, and through consultation during the proposed development.

2. Information is stored on the Council’s ICT systems, with restricted number of hard copy documents available to the project team.[let's hope information isn't stored on the Anite-ICLipse database!]

3. The Council will keep the documents on record for 7 years in line with our retention policy.

I find it fascinating that so many unelected council officers were party to the details of the partnership with West Ham United FC yet, if you quiz a Newham councillor, they know sweet FA!

"If you have rotten governance you will have rotten practice" ~ Newham Councillor John Gray (July 17, 2011)

2011-07-18T00:34:00.004+01:00

The irony is breathtaking…

Let's hope there are no stones near Newham Dockside.

Whodunit?

2011-07-17T23:46:00.003+01:00

Without a doubt it’s safe to say that the “disheartened” Newham councillor’s letter in last week Recorder was incredibly naïve; one can only imagine the mood around the West Wing when the letter was read to the comedy mayor. It’s highly unlikely that a seasoned Newham councillor would have pushed his or her luck and chanced incurring the wrath of the comedy mayor and we can rule out those who have mayoral advisor and community lead member portfolios.

So, it’s within the bounds of probability that “disheartened” is a new councillor. Who do you think it might be?

Newham’s forgotten minority: an insider speaks out.

2011-07-13T22:43:00.005+01:00

“I am fed up with constituents having a go about Newham councillors. There are 7,000 constituents between three councillors in the ward I serve.

Some people think we should be at their beck and call and visit them and their street every week. They moan about the money we get (would they do it for free?), the state of the roads, the traffic and parking outside their homes, the state of people’s front gardens and rubbish on the roads.

Some councillors walk the streets every week just clearing the rubbish put outside in your street and front gardens. Who put the rubbish there? Councillors don’t, the public do. If you want your roads kept clean, tell your neighbours not to put rubbish in the road or in their front gardens.

Councillors cannot be around all the time. They have lots of streets to cover, meetings to go to and site meetings with officers to see that they are getting things done promptly. I estimate we are available for about 20 hours a day.

What people forget is we do have families and a life to live.

I personally have been out on the street till 4am to get things sorted and help rough sleepers hidden in bushes, parks, doorways and alleyways.

You don’t hear much about that yet people still give councillors hell. I say: if you don’t like what we do, get out and do it yourself.”

These are the words of a disheartened Newham councillor as printed in today’s Newham Recorder. Who could possibly have known that things are so bad for our poor elected council members? What kind of uncaring, selfish community are we if we expect our councillors to deal with fly-tipping, filthy streets and illegal parking? Pity this poor philanthropist, struggling to get by on less than four hours sleep and a pittance of an allowance of £10,000.

Newham residents should hang their heads in shame that, as a result of their collective action (namely, voting for Labour candidates in local elections), such a deplorable example of abuse and depravation should manifest within the boundaries of the borough.

When I read this letter I thought it had to be a spoof. I called the Recorder and left a message for the editor, Colin Grainger, asking if he would get back to me confirming the letter was genuine. He very kindly e-mailed me at 15:25 stating that it was.

One can only wonder, what made this councillor think that writing such a rant to the only local newspaper would be a good idea?

But, he or she need not fret too much. I noticed on page 9 of the latest Newham Mag that the borough’s hoi polloi can “quiz” their councillors by e-mail or letter to the West Wing. A selection of questions will be answered in that hallowed periodical - great news for councillors. No more pesky e-mails from constituents and the comedy mayor’s office can sift out the awkward queries, leaving the safe, the fluffy, the innocuous so that all will appear to be well in the borough. Big brother is responding to you.

Finally, it was reassuring to see that the comedy mayor’s “resilience” propaganda is moving along at a pace. Disheartened Newham councillor’s moving final words succinctly sum up the resilience project: “If you don’t like what we do, get out and do it yourself” – the new credo of Newham’s Labour councillors.

Another coincidence, another unanswered question.

2011-07-12T00:32:00.004+01:00

By sheer coincidence, after blogging over the weekend about the possibility that an OPLC director (Dionne Knight) may have visited Newham Council premises during the Olympic Stadium biding process, at 11:22 on Monday I received the following response to my related Freedom of Information request (dated the 7th July - the day after it was actually due):

"In our initial response to your request dated 21st June, we advised that Ms Knight did not, to our knowledge, visit the LBN offices on any OPLC business.

If, on the other hand, individuals visit LBN offices on a personal basis, i.e. because they are meeting someone who is in the building either on a work or non-work related capacity, then this would be considered personal information about the person and the subject. Therefore information such as this would be exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as personal details are protected under the Data Protection Act 1998. Disclosure would therefore contravene the first data protection principle, which requires that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully by the London Borough of Newham. We do not believe that private individuals or local authority staff would expect their personal information to be made available in the public domain.

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides an absolute exemption where disclosure of personal data about individuals would contravene any of the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act. Therefore there is no requirement to consider the public interest test in disclosure.

In light of this, we do not uphold your appeal."

Still none the wiser. All I want to know is whether or not Knight visited Council offices during the period the bidding process was in progress. I guess I'll have to start again with a different question.

Coincidences, panic and opportunity.

2011-07-09T22:05:00.006+01:00

The brouhaha over revelations in last week’s Sunday Times regarding the fact that an Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) director (and former senior officer at Newham Council) has been suspended for entering into an undisclosed consultancy contract with West Ham United FC (secured for her by her WHUFC director partner – also a former senior officer at Newham Council) has mobilised the Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales, to come out guns blazing in defence of his bid to obtain the tenancy of the Olympic Stadium post the 2012 games.

On the 4th of July Sir Robin is reported by the BBC to have stated: "The sooner we can get on with it the better. Anything that delays it is not good for our country.

"It is a seriously hugely popular bid. Everybody thought it was the best - let's just get on with it. We are very keen to get started.

"Our bid is the best. It works in every possible way. We will retain the stadium so we can use it nationally and regionally. Our community will benefit enormously from it.

"Any rational person will say 'it is a no-brainer, this is by far the best bid - let's get on with it'."

His panic had been prompted by reports that the Sunday Times disclosures may result in the reversal of the OPLC’s decision to hand the stadium over to the Newham Council/WHUFC partnership with the bidding process starting again from scratch. Wales’ desperation is understandable as he has invested a great deal of the Council’s money and Council Officers’ time in the original bid, and he is evidently keen to get his hands on the keys to the stadium.

The details of the relationship between the OPLC director, Dionne Knight, and WHUFC’s Olympic project director, Ian Tompkins, have been covered exhaustively in the media so they will not be repeated here. However, it is worth taking some time to examine the statement made by WHUFC regarding Ms Knight’s consultancy work with the club and Knight and Tompkins' relationships, if any, with Newham Council and the mayor’s office – relationships that have been overlooked by the Sunday Times report.

The football club maintains that Knight was acting as a consultant assisting with the preparation of procurement documents for post games conversion contracts and any remuneration made to Knight was on behalf of the Stadium Legacy Partnership. The Sunday Times reported that Knight was paid two payments prior to OPLC’s stadium decision and two payments the month after the decision. The decision was announced in the second week of February.

The partnership was incorporated on the 12th of April, which means that Knight could not have had a contractual agreement with the partnership at the time she was paid. So it seems fairly straightforward that, had there been a need at the time for such consultancy work, it would be one of the partners who would foot the bill. However, it does beg the question: why was there the requirement for a consultant to work on conversion procurement procedures before the decision had been made?

Furthermore, WHUFC make the claim that the consultancy contract Knight procured had been widely tendered and there had been several unsuccessful bidders. I can find no evidence to corroborate this, although a quick Internet search for “Olympic Stadium conversion bids” throws up six references to requests for bids to convert the stadium (from a page of ten results).

My interest in the activities of Tompkins and Knight began when I started to get a number of communications from Newham Council employees informing me that both were regular visitors to Newham Dockside (Newham Council’s offices) during the bidding process and spent a good deal of time in the Council’s communications department and the mayor’s offices.

Initially I didn’t think much of it. I was aware that Tompkins is a WHUFC employee and, as the Council was in partnership with the club regarding the stadium bid, his close friendship with Newham’s mayor made him the most logical choice to liase between the partners. I had no idea who Knight was. I made a few enquiries and was told that she had been a senior officer in Newham’s legal department, was Tompkins' partner and had been seconded to the Olympic Delivery Authority, although I have yet to confirm that she had been seconded. A little further checking and I soon found that she was a director of the OPLC.

On 7th of April I submitted a FOI request to Newham Council asking for details of Tompkins' and Knight's visits to the Council’s offices. Although the authority have passed on some details of Tompkins visits they refuse to-date to confirm that Knight had visited Newham Dockside other than to say that she did not visit in an official OPLC capacity.

As stated, it’s fairly common knowledge that Tompkins has close ties with Sir Robin Wales. I can only imagine that it’s not beyond the bounds of probability that the mayor will have met with Tompkins’ partner from time-to-time.

The OPLC’s assurances that Knight had no knowledge of the bidding process may well be true, but: that, by an odd coincidence, she was awarded a consultancy contract on behalf of the stadium partnership by the only employee of the partnership who, by a further coincidence, happens to be her partner; that both Knight and Tompkins are former senior employees of Newham Council; and, as it is a possibility that Knight had visited the Council’s offices during the bidding process, it is understandable that there have been calls for the bidding process to be revisited.

Whether or not that transpires, now is the perfect opportunity for Newham councillors to do the very thing they should have done when Newham Council’s partnership with WHUFC was first mooted. They should ask to see ALL the details of the bid and the partnership and examine the veracity of the claims made by the mayor: Why will a delay be no good for our country? Is it “a seriously hugely popular bid”? Did everybody think it was the best? Does it work “in every possible way”? And, most importantly, how will “our community… benefit enormously from it”? After all, the people of Newham have a considerable share in the partnership (fifty-percent to be precise) and, as representatives of the people, councillors should be in a position to report back to the people regarding the progress of their investment.

The benefits for WHUFC are obvious. As far as I can ascertain, Newham Council has paid for the greater share of the bid costs. Westfield has offered to cover the club’s £20 million share of the refurbishment costs (Newham’s share being £40 million, to be financed by a yet to be procured loan that will supposedly be passed on to the stadium partnership). The move, should it go ahead, will free up the club’s Boleyn ground to sell on for redevelopment. And, the club has a fifty-percent share in the stadium partnership without, it seems, making much of an investment in the project other than relocating to a newer, bigger stadium.

More and more it becomes evident that Newham Council’s involvement in the Olympic Stadium bid has been little more than an image obsessed mayor’s folly with no discernible benefits for the people of Newham.

Directly elected mayor’s are supposedly a positive development in the evolution of democratic governance in this country. In Newham, the directly elected mayoralty has, because of a lack of scrutiny of the executive, taken leaps backward to something that would sit neatly in the political landscape of the 18th century.

Note: Martin Warne has covered many of the points raised above much more eloquently than I have here.

A kind of magic?

2011-06-30T23:52:00.006+01:00

The comedy mayor's minions are currently mulling over the Merlin Project Draft Document, the objectives of which are to:
"Achieve measurable benefits from lift and shift of (timetabled) services into the front line; improve physical infrastructure of front offices for benefit of customers (measureable (sic) benefits); drive the integration and improvement of customer data systems (including the web) across the council; ensure improved customer experience through the mystery shopping programme; improve quality in Customer Services and operate to the prescribed TOM(target operating model - what the f...?!); and, delivery of a set of complementary projects designed to enhance customer service and deliver savings."

All well and good but, at a time when the comedy mayor is looking to make serious savings, is it wise to spend £4.5 million on ITC, £2.5 million on building refurbishment and £15 million on four new "integrated" front offices? It's claimed that this spend will see a saving of £11 million over 3 years. This needs further clarification as spending £22 million to save £11 million doesn't look very magical to me... Double, Double Toil and Trouble.

To lend, or not to lend, that is the question:

2011-06-23T00:56:00.011+01:00

For many months we’ve had assurances from the comedy mayor and his flunkies that the loan to West Ham United FC for the Olympic Stadium will not cost the taxpayer a penny, and that the money can not be used for any other purpose, he’s quoted as saying:

“We are not sacrificing anything for this. We are doing prudential borrowing, but we cannot use this borrowing for anything else and it does not affect our borrowing capacity or what we can spend. It has no negative impact.

The debt, which costs our residents nothing, will be repaid and then we start to share in the profit. It may take a few years but we will benefit.

As our finance director said, we are putting no equity in and we get a profit out.” [Sir Robin Wales, Mayor of Newham - Daily Telegraph 27 January 2011]

Nevertheless, it now appears that Newham Council has not agreed a loan to West Ham United FC. The Daily Telegraph has reported that, in its submission to the first stage of the judicial review challenging the Olympic Stadium bid, Newham Council argues that it has not agreed to make the loan, but agreed that its chief executive could make the loan in future, if a suitable deal can be agreed with West Ham over terms and conditions.

There’s more than a little smoke and mirrors at work here. I’ve always maintained that Spurs and Orient have made the same mistake as most of the media in thinking that the bid was led by WHUFC, Newham Council being the minor partner. As a result, the often-reported line that Newham Council is lending £40 million to WHUFC was swallowed without question.

Newham Council has acknowledged that it is not lending to WHUFC but to the special purpose vehicle created specifically to represent Newham Council’s partnership with WHUFC regarding the stadium. So, in effect, the loan is Newham Council’s contribution to the partnership, covering £40 million of the estimated £95 million refit costs as outlined in the joint bid. £35 million is to be provided by the OPLC, leaving WHUFC to find the remaining £20 million. Fortunately for the club, Westfield has offered to cover that part of the costs.

The logical conclusion from all this is that the bid has always been a Newham Council bid. The co-owners of WHUFC, Gold and Sullivan, have been happy to tag along as a move to the Olympic Stadium frees up a potentially lucrative plot of land, namely the Boleyn ground, and the club’s involvement gives the Council’s bid some sporting credence. The SPV has already been set up and Newham Council has a 50 percent share in the partnership, giving WHUFC an equal share in any potential earnings made by the SPV at, what appears to be, next to no financial cost to the club. It seems that terms and conditions have been agreed.

When the time comes for Newham Council to take out the £40 million loan, my money is on Westfield being the lender (which is why the comedy mayor makes the claim that the money cannot be used for any other purpose – if the Council borrows from the Public Works Loans Board, it can); neat and predictable.

However, this leaves the big questions unanswered: Why has the Council committed to such a venture with a football club that’s in a dire strait financially? How, specifically, will the people of Newham benefit from the deal? If, as has been claimed in the Council's submission, no loan has been agreed as yet, why can the Council not pull out of the deal and borrow the money to save jobs and services instead? And, most importantly, if the comedy mayor is determined to go ahead with this folly, cui bono?

"Secrecy is the enemy of efficiency, but don't let anyone know it" ~ Ric Ocasek

2011-06-16T16:35:00.013+01:00

Since the comedy mayor first took control of the helm at Newham Council the authority has been at the forefront information technology, implementing ICT “solutions” that have made dramatic improvements to the Council’s efficiency, facilitating speedier decision making. Information at the touch of a button… maybe not.

On the 22nd of April I submitted the following freedom of information request to Newham Council:

“During the financial year of 2010 to 2011, how many claims for expenses submitted by any contractors, consultants, interim managers, or any other persons contracted to provided services for the London Borough of Newham, without corroborating receipts (or any other paperwork confirming the expenditure claimed for, other than the actual claim documentation) has the Chief Executive (or any other authorised officer) approved for payment?

And what is the total cost for such payments?”

Newham Council responded five days later informing me that I would get a response by 26th May.

On the 24th I got this response:

“Under the Freedom of Information Act the Council has a right to refuse a request for information held if the cost of complying with a request exceeds the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for local authorities is £450 or 2.5 days or 18 hours. We believe in this case such an exemption applies and have decided to refuse your request for information under section 12(1) of the Act.

12 Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

To collate the information requested would require us to interrogate all invoices to ascertain the number of claims and total cost of these, which would take more than 2.5 days of searching.”

On the 31st I sent the following, requesting a review:

“I am requesting that you reconsider your response to my request for information.

Yet again, the London Borough of Newham has failed to comply with the legal obligation, as set out in Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to provide advice and assistance regarding how my request may be revised to bring it within the statutory cost limits.

Furthermore, as you have informed me by way of response to an earlier FOI request (your reference 8544) that all of the authorities financial transactions are recorded on electronic databases, you should explain why collating the information I requested would take more than 2 and a half days.

If the data I requested is not stored electronically, you could have informed me how the data of this type is stored and you could have sent me a blank expense request form so I may ascertain what type of data you require from claimants. There is also the issue that, if the data I requested is not stored electronically and as it is of a financial nature, your response referenced 8544 was inaccurate.

Please confirm within 48 hours that you are prepared to fulfil your legal obligation under Section 16 of the act.”

This Tuesday I got this response:

We write further to your email dated 1st June 2011 regarding your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. As requested, we have conducted a review of the information provided and the handling of your request, in keeping with stage 1 of our complaint and review procedures.

In our initial response dated 24th May 2011, dispatched on the same day, we advised, "To collate the information requested would require us to interrogate all invoices to ascertain the number of claims and total cost of these, which would take more than 2.5 days of searching."

In your email dated 1st June 2011, you stated that we have failed to advise you how you could narrow your request so that the information could be provided within the appropriate limit and inform you how the type of data requested is stored. You also suggested that there was a discrepancy with a previous similar request (E8544).

Having concluded the review, we can confirm as follows:
Due to the way in which electronic information is captured and stored the response to the request E8962 is correct. Whilst basic financial information is held in the General ledger and Accounts Payable systems, detailed invoice data is held in Iclipse (an electronic document management system). This is "non searchable" in that it holds electronic copies of the invoices, effectively as images or pictures. I.e. it is possible to retrieve the data but not possible to do further electronic analysis with it. The data can be retrieved individually but after this it becomes a manual process. Allowing 3 minutes per transaction to search, print and transcribe the data, which would result in 20 days of work, given there were nearly 3000 transaction items on consultancy codes in 2010/11. Breakdown as follows:

Minutes to search print and Transcribe 3
Number of transactions 2974
Total Minutes 8922
Total Person days (7.2 hours)
20.65

Therefore, we have estimated that it would greatly exceed 2.5 days or 18 hours and cost well in excess of £450 to determine whether we hold the information requested, locating, retrieving and extracting it or a document containing it.

We are satisfied that there is no contradiction with the response provided for request E8544. In answering your questions posed in that request, "Does Newham Council keep all financial transactions recorded on electronic databases", we stated, "yes - all financial transactions are recorded on electronic databases. However the record only hold basic invoice and payment data.". Regarding another question about keeping electronic records, we advised, that although we hold the information it would not be easy to retrieve it due to the way in which data is recorded.

In view of the way how the information is stored, we cannot see how any formulation of your request would enable us to identify and extract the information you requested within the appropriate limit (less than 2.5 days) taking into account the breakdown outlined above (20.65 days).

In light o this, we maintain the response that was originally provided. That is, under Section 12 of the Act, a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information where the cost of compliance is estimated to exceed the appropriate limit.”

So there you have it.

I find it it pretty difficult to believe that Newham Council has an electronic document management system that is no better than keeping documents in folders in a filing cabinet.

The Iclipse system referred to is the Anite-ICLipse document management system provided by Northgate Information Solutions Limited. I phoned the company to verify that the system is little more than an electronic microfiche. I was told that it is a fully functioning database. I asked if it's possible to pull detailed enquiries from the system that, for example, relate to invoices from a specific source; it is.

It may well be the case that Newham has introduced software that its staff cannot use to its full potential (and if that is so, it begs the question: how does the authority keep tabs on invoices submitted by vendors and consultants?). But my suspicion is that my question is one that, for one reason or another, the Council would rather not answer.

However, if I get this level of flim-flam over what is, in the greater scheme of things, a fairly innocuous enquiry, what confidence can we have that the Council is as transparent and as open as it claims to be on its many financial dealings?

The West Ham/Olympic Stadium deal looks more and more worrying by the minute.

Trade Union representation and Newham Council.

2011-06-14T22:21:00.002+01:00

Of late there's been a good number of comments placed on this blog that voice concern about Newham Council's attitude to staff while lumbering through the current process of implementing cuts; there's also some interesting views on the quality of Trade Union representation.

I know very little about what's actually going on but, having spoken to a number of current Council employees, I have found that there is some substance to many of the points raised in the comments.

Although it would be impossible for me to write up a half decent blog post on this issue without having some solid, reliable background information, I'd be more than willing to add something to this blog if I was passed on such information. So, in light of that, should any Council employee wish to give me a substantive rundown of what is the truth behind the comments, I can be contacted on this e-mail address:

b1000news@gmail.com

If anyone does wish to forward to me a breakdown of the current situation at Building 1000 (or any other authority workplace) all I ask is that you pass on truthful, accurate information. Please, no rants.

I hope it's taken as fact that any communication with me will be in the strictest confidence.

"Boeuf a la mode! He who dares wins!" ~ Derek "Del Boy" Trotter

2011-06-14T17:18:00.006+01:00

Further to my earlier post, it seems that West Ham United FC and Newham Council are EQUAL partners in the Stadium Legacy Partnership LLP.

Evidently, WHUFC are coming up roses in this deal as there is little to no evidence that the club has stumped up any funds for the stadium takeover.

As of yet, Newham Council has not procured a loan to fund its part of the £95 million refit of the stadium.

interestingly, when questioned regarding the possibility that Council officers may have been seconded to the partnership, Newham came back with the following: A Newham trainee is on temporary work experience secondment to the partnership; no doubt trusted with the very important task of warming the comedy mayor's gold-plated stadium seat before the great man arrives at the venue.

It will be interesting to see if Gold and Sullivan do eventually put their hands in their pockets to assist with the funding of this bizarre venture... until then they're quids in. Luvly Jubbly.

Resilience may be a necessity for Newham residents, but not as the comedy mayor would define it.

2011-06-08T14:49:00.004+01:00

Worryingly, Newham is listed as one of 25 priority areas in the governments Prevent Strategy Review – the Prevent Strategy is part of a wider counter-terrorism strategy, its aim being to prevent people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.

One can only assume that Newham (in conjunction with the other surrounding “Olympic” boroughs) has been listed not only because of its large number of Muslim residents, but also because it has within its borders the bulk of the Olympic venues, a major transport hub and the largest shopping mall in Europe.

Evidently, the comedy mayor has been kept out of the loop regarding the prioritising of specific areas - what other explanation can there be for his ill-timed and inexplicable decision to do away with foreign language newspapers in Newham’s libraries and his insistence that we should all consider ourselves English now (with yet to be defined “English” values at the heart of our resilient community). Why would you do these things if you are aware that the borough you oversee has a potential problem regarding radicalisation within its communities?

If the comedy mayor took these decisions on the advice of his advisor for community affairs, now might be a good time to start contemplating a reshuffle.

Of course, this should be of little to no surprise to those who keep a close eye on the comedy mayor’s antics. It’s common knowledge that, should there be the slightest hint of smouldering embers of resentment among any of Newham’s residents, he’ll be blissfully unaware, his mind focused on loftier things such as running a sporting and entertainment venue and raising his media profile.

"Coincidence is the word we use when we can't see the levers and pulleys" ~ Emma Bull

2011-06-08T01:05:00.006+01:00

If this report in the Construction Enquirer is true, fortune certainly does favour the bold. The co-owners of West Ham United FC, David Gold and David Sullivan, will see their club move from the Boleyn Ground to the Olympic Stadium – freeing up 3.2 hectares of prime real estate for potential redevelopment - without having to put their hands in their pockets.

The successful West Ham FC/Newham Council bid for the stadium entailed a proposed £95 million refurbishment of the stadium. £35 million to be stumped up from the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s conversion pot (public money), £40 million from the infamous Newham Council “loan” (more public money), leaving Gold and Sullivan to find a further £20 million.

West Ham’s relegation is reported to have cost the club revenue somewhere in the region of £90 million: money it could have had, had the club managed to stay in the premiership. The club’s owners have stated that the relegation may well cost them £40 million of their own cash to keep the club on an even keel.

So it must be of great relief to them that Westfield has generously offered to lend them the money to cover their share in the Stadium Legacy Partnership LLP.

It’s still uncertain as to where the Newham Council loan will come from: hopefully, I should have an answer by Friday. As of yet, there is no record of the council requesting a loan from the Public Works Loan Board.

Isn’t it rosy how things are turning out… just by coincidence, the comedy mayor gets his stadium, Gold and Sullivan get to free-up some valuable property to sell whilst relocating their cash-guzzling business to a new location with minimum outlay and Westfield’s retail site becomes all the more attractive by virtue of a super casino located right at the heart of the Stratford City Mall.

I can hear the resilient people of Newham rejoicing all across the borough.

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

2011-06-02T01:23:00.007+01:00

There seems to be some confusion over whether or not the Malaysian entrepreneur, Tony Fernandes, has made a bid for West Ham United FC. The BBC are reporting that the current owners, Gold and Sullivan, are unaware of any such bid offer.

However, on the BBC 6:30 London News programme, their Formula One correspondent, David Croft, stated that Fernandes had told him that he’s been in talks with Gold and Sullivan for some weeks. I guess we’ll only get to the truth when the sale has been announced.

However, if Gold and Sullivan are about to sell the club, what happens to their cast-iron guarantee that Newham Council’s £40 million loan for the Olympic Stadium will be repaid?

Of course, the truth is, Newham Council has guaranteed the repayment of the loan (it wouldn’t have been able to take it on in the first instance if it hadn’t), so it means next to nothing if Gold and Sullivan stay or cash in and go; the comedy mayor's arrival must be visible from a very, very long distance.

I wonder, did the comedy mayor’s Council team factor in a possible change of ownership of the club when they deliberated over the viability of going into business with WHUFC in the Stadium partnership?

But it will be interesting to see how the dynamics will work out between the comedy mayor and his new business partner (whoever it turns out to be).

If it does happen to be Fernandes, how long do you think it will take before the comedy mayor announces that, as a part of Newham’s regeneration, a new Formula One track will be built south of the A13 bringing jobs and benefits for all?

First beneficiaries of Newham Council’s Olympic Stadium Legacy revealed.

2011-05-28T11:33:00.009+01:00

The Lawyer has listed the legal teams for two of the four outstanding Judicial Reviews that have been sought against Newham Council (the two relating to the Olympic Stadium Loan - the other two are regarding the Casino decision).

Tottenham Hotspur FC have retained Blackstone Chambers’ Dinah Rose QC. She was instructed by Olswang partner Dan Tench to lead against the London Borough of Newham, the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OLPC), the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Government.

Newham Council has instructed Blackstone Chambers’ John Howell QC to lead Paul Luckhurst and Tom de la Mare.

The OLPC have taken on Brick Court’s Richard Gordon QC and Monckton Chambers’ Daniel Beard QC.

The Greater London Authority has also gone to Brick Court, instructing Martin Chamberlain.

The Government (Department for Culture Media & Sport and The Communities and Local Government) has opted for Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC and Alan Bates.

West Ham have also gone to Blackstone, with David Pannick QC instructed by Henri Brandman, partner of Henri Brandman & Co.

Leyton Orient Football Club have solicitors Mishcon de Reya instructing Adam Lewis QC to lead Tom Richards, both of Blackstone Chambers.

As silks are on anything between £150 to £1000 an hour, it must be happy hour at Blackstone, Brick Court and Monckton Chambers.

So it’s drinks all round, courtesy of the comedy mayor and that great cash cow that is Newham Council finances. Chin chin, M’lud.

Forget “Englishness”, we’re all Tories now!

2011-05-26T23:06:00.011+01:00

The latest offering of gibberish emanating from the comedy mayor’s West Wing office is the consultation document “A Strong Community: Building Resilience in Newham”.

As Kevin Blowe has highlighted in his blog, the core content of the document is not too far removed from Cameron’s Big Society waffle - typical comedy mayor: no big ideas, just borrowed ones.

Reading through the document I wasn’t disappointed. It’s chock-a-block with the comedy mayor’s usual syrupy, feel good, “we’re all in this together” language that doesn’t really say much. For example, and as Kevin points out, who wouldn’t agree that a decent, secure job is better than being unemployed and living hand-to-mouth on benefits?

It wouldn’t be too difficult to pick holes in the document, but I see little point in doing so as, in all honesty, the comedy mayor is only doing what one would expect of any self-serving, self-promoting politician. Evidently, he sees something bigger than mayor of Newham on the horizon and he’s making his pitch for it.

However, there are two things that struck me as I read through the document. The first is, if he really is committed to empowering local people and willing to interact with them, why did he do away with community forums? One certain way to develop a stronger community is to involve that community in the democratic process; to get the community involved in the decision making. Scant evidence of that in Newham.

But the most bizarre thing about the comedy mayor’s latest missive is his assertion that, over the years, public policy in Newham has failed to achieve. All this is written as if the comedy mayor has just galloped in on a white charger, ready to right yesterday’s wrongs. He’s been at the helm (in one form or another) for the last 16 years, so what’s changed now?

I recall that, more than a decade ago (when the comedy mayor was just the comedy leader of Council), Newham was going to be all-singing, all-dancing by 2010. That deadline has been and gone and those promises have faded into history. Surely, he cannot believe that by bemoaning the sins of the past he abrogates his part in them. As I’ve stated before, he does talk bollocks.

Movers and shakers? Or, seat-warmers and mickey takers?

2011-05-18T16:12:00.004+01:00

Tomorrow night the Council’s AGM will take place at the Town Hall. It’s a year on from the last local elections and all the new councillors should now be very comfortable with their role as elected representatives of the residents of Newham. One would like to think that one of two of them will have shown enough promise to have attracted the attention of the comedy mayor.

Since 2002, he’s more-or-less had the same old, tired, listless bunch fawning after him. Maybe, just maybe, this will be the year when he injects some new blood into the ranks of his cabinet and mayoral advisors – after all, what’s the point of performance monitoring of councillors if you do bugger all with the information?

So, who among the new councillors will be making his or her way ever so slightly up that greasy pole?

Lets list what we know about the representational performance of each new councillor as reported in the Newham Recorder and elsewhere so as to judge their respective chances of getting a promotion:
Jose Alexander: nothing.
Leanora Cameron: nothing.
Nirmal Kaur Chadha: nothing.
David Christie: nothing.
Charity Fiberesima: nothing.
John Gray: nothing.
Forhad Hussain: nothing.
Charlene McLean: nothing.
Farah Nazeer: nothing.
Firoza Nekiwala: nothing.
Mukesh Patel: nothing.
Salim Patel: nothing.
Terence Paul: nothing.
Gavin Pearson: nothing.
Ellie Robinson: nothing.

Hmm, maybe we should do the same with the current mayoral advisors and cabinet:

Unmesh Desai: next to nothing.
Lester Hudson: next to nothing.
Joy Laguda: next to nothing.
Quintin Peppiatt: next to nothing.
Andrew Baikie: next to nothing.
Paul Brickell: next to nothing.
Ian Corbett: next to nothing.
Richard Crawford: next to nothing.
Clive Furness: next to nothing.
Alec Kellaway: next to nothing.
Anthony McAlmont: next to nothing.
Conor McAuley: next to nothing.
Riaz Ahmed Mirza: next to nothing.
Neil Wilson: next to nothing.

That’s democracy in action.

However, my money is on Gray and Brayshaw moving up the ranks (okay I know Brayshaw isn’t a new councillor as such).

I can sense the anticipation out there.

What's in a name?

2011-05-18T15:17:00.013+01:00

For a good few weeks, offers to construction companies to submit tenders for the refurbishment of the Olympic Stadium, post the 2012 games, have been popping up on the Internet. The company asking for the tenders is listed as the “Legacy Stadium Partnership LLP”.

For the past two weeks I’ve occasionally checked the Companies House web-site for the listing of the partnership but there is nothing listed. Yesterday I called Companies House and asked a member of staff if they could find the partnership on their system. I did this twice and on each occasion I was told no such company existed.

I had a lengthy discussion with a journalist on the issue. He considered the possibility that the partnership had been registered overseas, a notion that I thought was a possibility.

In any event, yesterday evening West Ham United held an event for local residents to up-date them on any progress that had been made regarding the future of the Boleyn ground. This was hosted by Ian Tompkins, the Olympic Project Director for WHUFC (and former communications supremo for Newham Council). In a nutshell, nothing’s been written in stone, there are 5 “organisations” that have shown an interest in the site (but he couldn’t say who they are or what they want to do with the ground), and, rest assured, he promised that nothing would be done with the site without local people being consulted first.

He took questions from the dozen or so people who attended. One person made the point that the event hadn’t been widely advertised. Tompkins said that it was in the Newham Mag Green Street supplement. But, as many pointed out, who reads that?

A couple of people asked if there was any truth in the rumour that a mosque would be built on the site – answer: no. Someone asked about the £40 million loan from Newham Council but he didn’t want to get into that.

I asked where the stadium partnership had been registered. He said it was registered at Companies House. I said it wasn’t as I’d checked during the day. Ian kindly offered to show me the paperwork later, an offer I accepted.

However, within minutes of my asking the question, I got an e-mail telling me that the partnership had been registered at Companies House but it was called “Stadium Legacy Partnership LLP” (Ref: OC363741).

I apologised to Ian and explained the confusion. Bizarrely, he responded by saying that he was aware of the fact that the wrong name was listed on copious web-sites referring to the offer for tenders and he concluded by stating that maybe he should get that changed!

So, for anyone who is interested (I include the odd councillor or two), the partnership consists of Newham Council and West Ham United FC (I admit, this surprised me, as I half expected the other partners to be Gold and Sullivan – it seemed to me that that was a more logical way for them to recoup some of the losses they’ve made since investing in the club), and the registered offices are in Building 1000.

Cry God for Sir Robin, England and St. George!

2011-05-18T11:52:00.011+01:00

Last Friday morning I sat down at my laptop intending to play catch-up and write a blog-post on the comedy mayor’s need to be seen defending all things “English”. It's taken me a while to get my head round it.

He’s made a contribution on the Guardian’s Comment is Free blog on what is “Englishness”, he’s mused on the subject in the Newham Mag (without actually stating what “Englishness” is) and he’s done away with foreign language newspapers in Newham’s libraries in an effort to promote the English language.

On the latter, Martin Warne has made an excellent comment on Newham’s E-Democracy Forum which is worth repeating here in full:

The BBC is reporting that Newham libraries are to remove all foreign language publications, quoting the Mayor as saying the move will "encourage people to speak & learn English."

The decision has, predictably, comes in for some criticism from members of communities that will be affected by the move. But the Mayor rejects this, saying, "English language is something that we're pushing very strongly.

"Two things about the English language: You need it to get a job; secondly it brings a community together.

"Public money should be spent encouraging people to speak and learn English. Whenever I raise that with my residents they all agree with that."

Leaving aside for a moment Sir Robin's self-aggrandising description of Newham people as "my residents," this is an interesting position, and much more in tune with current Conservative thinking, which rejects multiculturalism as a failure, than the view taken by the left since at least the 1960s.

In a speech earlier this year in Munich David Cameron said, "We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream." He added that we need to make sure that "immigrants speak the language of their new home."

I wonder if this apparent conversion to Tory thinking is a just an excuse for a bit of mean-spirited penny-pinching, trimming into the prevailing political wind, or whether the Mayor genuinely believes it. If so, will he follow up by axing the translation services that put the borough's myriad communications into a variety of community languages, on the basis that if people want to transact with government they should do it in English? It would be controversial, but would have the merit of consistency.

There is some small irony in a Scottish mayor presiding over a London borough with an ethnically diverse population positioning himself as a champion of Englishness. It would be fascinating to know what other councillors think of all this, and whether they were consulted before Sir Robin decided on this latest campaign.

All I can add to that is that the comedy mayor has made the presumption that those people who made use of the availability of foreign language newspapers struggle with, or cannot speak/read/write, English.

And picking up on a point that another contributor to the E-Democracy Forum made, it’s appears that the comedy mayor made this decision without consulting Newham’s 60 ward councillors.

I particularly liked his Guardian piece. This little snippet really stood out: “We promote what we believe to be English values. But in promoting neighbourliness, fair play and mutual respect we must ensure we do not claim them to be exclusively English traits”. Er, surely, if they are not “exclusively” English traits, they must be universal traits. He does talk bollocks.

He went on: “We can and should be both more relaxed and confident when it comes to talking about our national identity and how other cultures can be expressed within it. We were asked to fund a street party just for Bangladeshis. Forget it”. Poor Bangladeshis, what have they done to be picked out in this way? I wonder what his reaction would have been were he requested to fund a Sri Lankan street party? Or a Lithuanian street party? Bugger off, we’re all English now!

Martin alludes to the comedy mayor’s apparent sudden conversion to Conservatism, I’d argue there is nothing new about that. However, it is evident that he's making overtures to the wider world beyond the boundaries of Newham. One can only wonder what’s on the horizon in the on-going pantomime that is the comedy mayor’s progress (from this office to that which is to come).

However, there may be an alternative explanation for the comedy mayor’s promotion of Englishness. We are more than familiar with his aversion to that very continental of weapons, the crossbow; could it be that he has a hankering to return us to an England of yore? He’s very into promoting sporting activities, conceivably we’ll soon witness troops of young English people practising their skill’s with the sturdy English Longbow on Newham’s common land. Maybe that’s why he prefers the moniker “Robin” - taking from the rich and giving to the poor… no, that can’t be right.

Using the Alternative Vote System is a criminal waste of a vote - Discuss.

2011-05-10T17:05:00.009+01:00

It was interesting to see that the comedy mayor’s Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Advisor, Councillor Unmesh Desai, had taken the time to comment in last week’s Newham Recorder about the dangers of… the Alternative Vote System.

Even more interesting to find that he thinks running for a democratically elected office is akin to competing in a sporting event – he even pulled in supporting arguments from Karren Brady, Vice Chairman of West Ham United FC.

Councillor Desai thinks that AV diminishes the value of the electorate’s first preference vote and he qualified his point of view by stating that: “It is like Usain Bolt winning the 2012 gold medal and being given the bronze medal and the second placed athlete getting gold”. No it isn’t.

As the nation has made the decision to retain the First-Past-The-Post system I’ll not labour too long on the merits of AV, other than to state that standing as a candidate for an office which, if successful, makes one a directly elected representative of the population of a set constituency (both those that voted for you and those that did not) is nothing like running in a race, playing professional football or any other sport.

Politicians do not stand on a platform based on their physical prowess or sporting skills(luckily for them), but on a platform based on their policies and core beliefs as set out in their manifestos (well, I’ve been told this is what happens away from Newham).

Yes, AV involves compromise, but isn’t that the essence of a democracy. Having a successful candidate who has a broad base of support from across a constituency is surely better than one who has the support of only 35% of the total electorate.

In any event, what struck me as odd about Councillor Desai’s letter is that he could find the time to write it. In the same edition of the Newham Recorder (page 5) it was reported that rape and gun crime have gone up in Newham over the last year.

The report carried quotes from the borough commander explaining the significance of the latest crime figures, but there wasn’t even a dribble of a monosyllabic sentence from the comedy mayor’s ASB Tsar on the subject.

Now, I’m not saying that Councillor Desai shouldn’t have voiced his opinion on AV, and I’m glad he did as his arguments for First-Past-The-Post reconfirmed my belief that the voting system in this country badly needs reforming. However, I do find it odd that he felt it was appropriate to make a public statement on the voting system while ignoring any reference to a worrying upswing in serious offences.

The comedy mayor pays Councillor Desai and extra £30,000 a year to spend 5 days a week addressing an extensive (albeit not very clear) brief and part of that brief is to address the fear of crime, so it’s not unreasonable to expect a few words in the local press commenting on the latest crime figures.

Still, that’s not as much fun as swanning about, playing politics.

Comedy Mayor hits the jackpot!

2011-04-28T22:26:00.007+01:00

One decision in a year that results in a judicial review is bad news for any local authority, a decision that prompts two judicial reviews indicates sloppy scrutiny of the executive. But FOUR judicial reviews in one month as a result of TWO mayoral decisions can only mean one thing... the comedy mayor has been at it again!

The FT is reporting that the other unsuccessful casino bidders, Apollo Genting, have decided to have a piece of the action. As I've posted previously, a quick study of the minutes of the Licensing committee meeting that finalised the casino decision is an interesting read.

It all begs one very big question... what the hell do backbench councillors actually do?

£6,768.12 an hour: no qualifications, no skills, no experience required…

2011-04-21T00:09:00.007+01:00

It’s been almost a year since the last local elections and, over that period, there have been 8 meetings of the full Council. 4 of those meetings were scheduled, 3 were what have been described as “extraordinary” meetings and 1 was designated a special meeting (although it took place on the same night as a scheduled meeting).

The total time that the Council sat at these meetings (as recorded in the minutes) was 1 hour and 36 minutes. As each councillor is on a basic allowance of £10,829, I make that an hourly rate of somewhere in the region of £6,700 plus an hour.

No doubt there will be a number of people reading this who will think that I’m being more than a little unfair as councillors conduct surgeries and undertake casework, and a number of them sit on what are laughingly know as scrutiny commissions as well as a small number of other committees. Although surgeries and casework only effect the lives of a minority of a councillor’s constituents while robust participation at full Council has the potential to effect the lives of all constituents, I have some sympathy with that point of view.

However, the Council’s web site, under the title “How Newham is Governed”, states:

“The council is made up of the Mayor and 60 locally elected councillors who make decisions on how to provide local services on behalf of local people.

The Mayor takes decisions as advised by the Cabinet, Mayoral Advisors and Officers. The Mayor also has a representative role and can speak on behalf of the council in a wide range of settings”.

And goes on to make the bold assertion: “Together, councillors and council officers are responsible for making sure that local citizens get value for the money they pay in Council Tax”.

The first two sentences are contradictory: The Council makes decisions and the Mayor makes decisions. We all know the reality is that the comedy mayor makes all the decisions and the 60 councillors rubber-stamp them. In an ideal world, full Council meetings should be the arena where mayoral decisions are discussed and debated - preferably, before a full public gallery. But, as the longest Council meeting lasted 38 minutes (the shortest lasting a breath-taking 4 minutes), it is inconceivable that any worthwhile debate actually takes place in the Council chamber.

Had there been any meaningful debate, the Council may have avoided the three judicial reviews that are looming over the Authority’s already creaking finances. Each Judicial review brought about by the comedy mayor’s follies, and the finer details of each folly (the Olympic Stadium and the conveniently situated Casino) are a mystery to the greater majority of back-bench councillors.

£6,768.12 an hour: proof that you don’t necessarily get what you pay for.

Council meetings since the 2010 AGM:

12 Jul 2010 7.00 p.m. - Agenda, Minutes The meeting commenced at 7.00 p.m. and closed at 7.06 p.m. [6 mins]

13 Sep 2010 8.00 p.m. - Agenda, Minutes The meeting commenced at 8.00 p.m. and closed at 8.09 p.m. [9 mins]

23 Nov 2010 6.45 p.m. - Agenda, Minutes; Extraordinary Meeting The meeting commenced at 8.53 p.m. and closed at 8.58 p.m. [5 mins]

6 Dec 2010 8.00 p.m. - Agenda, Minutes The meeting commenced at 8.00 p.m. and closed at 8.10 p.m.[10 mins]

20 Jan 2011 7.30 p.m. - Agenda, Minutes; Extraordinary Meeting The meeting commenced at 7.35 pm, adjourned at 7.40 pm; reconvened at 8.34 pm and closed at 8.47 pm [18 mins total]

28 Feb 2011 8.00 p.m. - Agenda, Minutes The meeting commenced at 8.00 p.m. and closed at 8.38 p.m. [38 mins]

28 Feb 2011 8.15 p.m. - Agenda, Minutes; Special Meeting The meeting commenced at 8.39 p.m. and closed at 8.45 p.m. [6 mins]

28 Mar 2011 6.15 p.m. - Agenda, Minutes; Extraordinary Meeting The meeting commenced at 6.15 p.m. and closed at 6.19 p.m. [4 mins]

On coincidences and the peculiarities of Council meetings.

2011-04-14T23:45:00.008+01:00

On the 4th of March (the day after it was announced that the comedy mayor succeeded in his bid to run the Olympic Stadium – in Stratford - after the 2012 games) the Licensing Committee met to decide which of the bids to develop and operate a casino in Newham would be allowed to go ahead.

If the minutes are a true and accurate record, the meeting opened at 9:46, adjourned at 14:44, re-convened on Friday 11 march at 12:05 (although the text of the minutes states the meeting re-convened at 12:17) and closed at 12:18.

Of the eight councillors on the committee only six attended on the 4th of March and five attended on the 11th. Interestingly, the councillor who attended on the 4th but failed to show on the 11th was allowed to confirm a decision via e-mail (the minutes do not make it clear if the decision he confirmed is his or the collective decision of the committee). As far as I know, this is a first as I'm unaware of any other example where a sitting councillor is afforded the luxury of contributing to an important decision via the Council’s e-mail system.

I doubt very much if the e-mail confirmation related to a collective decision as, if that were the case, the discussion leading up to the decision would have taken place on the 4th between the four hours and fifty-eight minutes during which the committee sat and the minutes would reflect that.

Again, if the minutes are correct, the committee met for thirteen minutes, or one minute, to finalise a decision. What is bizarre is the length of time between the committee meeting to discuss the bid proposals and then re-grouping to make the decision – a full week. Why wasn’t the decision, which took a matter of minutes, made on the 4th?

It cannot be that committee members needed a further week to deliberate on the information that had been put before them as, were that the case, one would expect more than 13 minutes discussion before a decision was made. And one certainly wouldn’t expect that a committee member would have the opportunity to cast a vote without taking part in the full discussion. All, very, very odd.

The minutes also state that there were no declarations of interests. However, one of the councillors sitting on the committee represents one of the wards that would benefit from one of the bids; the other wards had no representation on the committee. It may well be a coincidence that the company bidding for a casino in that councillor’s ward was the successful party.

Having taken a cursory interest in the three bids, I find it baffling that the decision went to Aspers if - as the Council claims - regeneration was a prime consideration. The Aspers bid involves the refit of a building that will already be standing. The other bids require major regeneration and rebuild on their respective sites.

The Aspers bid will be located in an area that has, in recent years, seen an abundance of regeneration investment; the other bid locations have not.

Furthermore, one of the conditions Newham Council stated was vital in the consideration of where the casino should be located was that it would NOT be placed in an area that would attract casual, drop-in gambling (the steadily increasing number of high street bookmakers being cited as an example to avoid), yet the preferred bid is located in what will be the largest shopping mall in the country.

A final coincidence is the fact that the Council now has a commercial interest in the Stratford area. Isn’t it a wonderful accident of chance that there will be a large casino nearby to add to the attractiveness of the comedy mayor’s new entertainment venture as a viable venue for concerts and major sporting events. And to cap it all, the comedy mayor will get to set his own business rate… what a nice series of coincidences; isn't life grand.

Easy come, easy go…

2011-04-12T23:43:00.005+01:00

Anyone remember “Positively Inner London”? It was Newham Council’s ineffective campaign to get Newham reclassified as an inner London borough. The Council argued that such a reclassification would see the borough £58 million better off.

Newham Council’s 2003 document “POSITIVELY inner London” makes clear the case for adjusting Newham’s settlement rating and illustrates that, at that time, reclassification would have funded an extra 1270 jobs.

Taking into consideration the current cutbacks and proposed job losses, it makes one wonder how Newham Council would be faring in the present economic climate had the previous Labour government listened to the pleadings of those who campaigned for the change.

Evidently, judging from the arguments for reclassifying Newham as an inner London borough, any extra income Newham may be fortunate enough to receive is much need.

So, if, as The Wharf reports, it is true that Newham Council has entered into an agreement that, for the next 25 years, any income generated from business tax revenue in the Newham Enterprise Zone will be passed on to the London Local Enterprise Partnership, what was the comedy mayor thinking? Where is the logic there?

The whole purpose of enterprise zones is that the local authority sets, and collects, the business rate within the zone; the money to be used to regenerate the local area. What could prompt the comedy mayor to give this money away? Who could he be reaching out to? And why?

Evidently, he’s lining himself up to be perceived as the saviour of the Olympic legacy so it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he’s positioning for something that requires a London-wide profile... what could that be?

So Tessa, why DID you support Newham Council's bid for the Olympic Stadium?

2011-04-05T18:31:00.003+01:00

It appears that Tessa Sanderson is worried about the comedy mayor's commitment to athletics legacy post the 2012 games; evidently, she didn't work that closely with Sir Robin or she would have been aware of his P. T. Barnum fantasy.

My money is still on West Ham United FC spending one season at the stadium and then running back to Upton Park (planning permissions in hand) and the stadium used as an entertainments venue with some athletics... all brought to you by the (comedy) mayor of Newham.

The Walt Disney Company (and affiliates) announce they will partner Newham Council in £1.8 Billion bid for Olympic Park; Newham Council to borrow 80%

2011-03-31T23:49:00.009+01:00

of funds from Chinese government.

"And where are the clowns? Quick, send in the clowns. Don't bother - they're here." ~ Stephen Sondheim

2011-03-30T23:23:00.008+01:00

The comedy mayor’s desire to increase his holdings in the Olympic Park is making global news, as evidenced by the regurgitation in the South Africa Times of the Reuters interview with him that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. And again, his latest buzz-word “synergy” pops up.

Working from the premise that he’s not referring to synergism in its theological context (I cannot imagine that he is of a mind that his will is working in co-operation with the Holy Spirit and divine grace… on second thoughts…), I assume he is alluding to some potential benefit of combining the aquatic centre to his stadium venture. It could be that he thinks the two venues will in some way complement each other, creating a revenue stream that will be larger than that produced by either as individual entities; an interesting notion. However, as he has admitted in his statement to Reuters, he expects the aquatic centre to be a loss maker. As he is confident that the stadium will, over time, see a profit, why take the risk of adding a loss-making venue to his entertainment empire? This doesn’t appear to be sound business sense, and maybe that’s why he went into politics in the first place.

And that’s an interesting point: the man is the democratically elected mayor of Newham, doesn’t that post imply that he has a borough to run? How does he find the time to worry about what happens to the left-over infrastructure of a two week, global sporting event? Surely the post games legacy is of importance to the whole of London (or the Nation as a whole). Shouldn’t it be the GLA taking a lead on securing a future for the Olympic Park venues?

I half imagine that, when the comedy mayor talks of synergy, he has the Council model in mind. Here, there is overwhelming evidence of group think and group polarisation – two very negative manifestations of collective cohesion. No-doubt, should his submission to take over the aquatic centre get accepted, all the councillors will go along with it like clowns following the drum at the head of a circus parade… quite fitting if you think about it.

In for a penny, in for… well, millions and millions and millions: is the comedy mayor insane? Or does he think we are?

2011-03-28T22:51:00.005+01:00

I do hope you’re sitting down to read this, the comedy mayor’s intent on making a splash.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the comedy mayor is looking to expand his business portfolio (bankrolled by the residents of Newham, of course). The paper states that the London borough of Newham has added its name to a list of potential bidders to take over the costly and controversial 2012 Olympic aquatics centre after the Games.

The comedy mayor is reported to have stated that the council would be seeking partners after submitting a formal expression of interest to the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) for the facility and the multi-use handball arena. And he is quoted as saying: “This is going to be something which is going to cost money, not make money," he goes on, "Where the stadium will over time [my emphasis] not be a drain on public funds, and in fact will make us money, the aquatics is a very different beast. But we can see there might be a synergy with the stadium and we are just going to look at that." Is he mad?

Although he mentions that he’ll be looking for government money to cover maintenance costs, he doesn’t state how he intends to fund the bid – no doubt the bid will be structured very much like the Stadium bid with a partner in name only and the Council using its borrowing capability to secure the finance.

What makes this tragically comic is the fact that Newham Council cannot even manage its current leisure centres and swimming baths.

I wonder when he intends to tell the residents of Newham (let alone the councillors) of his grand, expansionist plans? If this lunacy goes any further and Newham councillors feel they must repeat their shameful performance over the Olympic Stadium bid and fail to rein in Wales and his cronies, they should do the decent thing and resign as they are not cut out (nor fit) to be elected representatives of the people of Newham.

It is evident that the comedy mayor thinks the London Borough of Newham is his personal cash cow… is it now time for the Labour leadership to step in and put him straight?

Up-date 29/03/2011: I e-mailed Colin Grainger, the editor of the Newham Recorder, and asked if he was aware of the comedy mayor's big ambition - one word answer "Yup".
So it appears that the local newspaper has a lead on Newham councillors when it comes to knowing what the comedy mayor has in mind for the borough. If I were a new councillor I'd be pretty pissed off; I'd give money to know how the comedy mayor will square this off with them in his one-to-one schmooze sessions with the newbies.

The case of the mysterious MPs.

2011-03-25T22:41:00.004Z

On the 26th of January Lyn Brown, MP for West Ham, hosted an event at the House of Commons extolling the virtues of the comedy mayor’s bid for the Olympic Stadium. After the event various news outlets reported that over 50 MPs, from across the political divide, attended the event and pledged their support for the comedy mayor’s folly.

I wanted to know which MPs made the pledge as I thought it might be worthwhile writing to them asking why they felt it was appropriate for them to involve themselves in a project that commits Newham residents to £40 million worth of debt when the residents of Newham themselves were not afforded the same courtesy? I also wanted to know what they actually knew about the bid.

So I wrote to the House of Commons and requested the attendance list for the event. I was told to contact Lyn Brown directly. I did. Lyn was pretty helpful but sadly she didn’t keep a list of the attendees.

So it appears that the identity of the MPs who want to piss Newham residents’ money away is as secretive as an attendance list for a Freemasons’ lodge meeting held in a bordello.

However, I did find out something very interesting. One of Lyn’s little helpers kindly informed me of a Parliamentary convention whereby MPs do not respond to requests for information from anyone who doesn’t happen to live in the MPs constituency. Total bollocks of course, but it highlights the irony of the fact that MPs don’t want any old Tom, Dick or Harry bothering them with questions, but it’s perfectly okay for them to stick their collective fucking noses into the financial affairs of one of the most deprived boroughs in the country if they can make the most of a freebie… Cheers!

Sir Robin’s Mighty Organ: Bigger than Ed Miliband?

2011-03-23T22:17:00.004Z

There’s a very fine letter by James Chappell in today’s Newham Recorder in which he questions the veracity of the comedy mayor’s assertions that no taxpayers’ money will go towards paying off the multimillion pound loan that the Council has procured to secure the long lease on the Olympic Stadium.

Mr. Chappell makes the point that it is nigh on impossible for Newham residents to get a handle on the truth as the Town Hall spin machine, in the guise of the Newham Mag (or the Mayor’s Mighty Organ as Mr Chappell refers to the rag), only disseminates the comedy mayor’s take on reality.

Anyone who has lived in Newham since 2002 will be well aware of the comedy mayor’s penchant for self-promotion, and he is quite happy to crow about how successful he’s been on that score. In 2008 the Local Government Association Labour Group published a report (Powers To The People: putting local people at the heart of constitutional reform), the comedy mayor contributed by writing a piece in favour of elected mayors. In that article he wrote: “Today in Newham 64% know that Newham is run by an elected mayor and can identify me by name. I bet in some parts of the country fewer than that even know what party is in control, let alone being able to name the leader”.

If truth be told, I’m sure he’s right. If I walked around Newham with a picture of Wales and one of Ed Miliband and asked which of the two people could name, I’d put good money on the vast majority being able to identify the comedy mayor and a good many fewer able to name the Labour leader. What the comedy mayor fails to divulge is the fact that the price of his fame is upward of £1.5 million a year – paid for by the people of Newham. I guess it’s always good to have an idea of what you waste your money on. [Incidentally, the comedy mayor’s case for elected mayor’s is an interesting piece, of which I’ll cover in more detail in a later post]

Some may see nothing wrong with an elected representative transforming himself into a local celebrity (and impresario) on public funds, but does having a local authority so enmeshed by the whims and ego of one person make for a healthy local democracy? In Newham, the comedy mayor has manoeuvred himself into a position where Labour councillors are so emasculated that none of his decisions are properly scrutinised. That may well suit the National Labour Party for the moment, but I’m sure there will be a time in the not too distant future when the comedy mayor will push his luck just a little too far. When that happens hubris will no-doubt embolden him and there will be no one who’ll be able to rein him in. I wonder how much That will cost Newham residents?

New wave of unemployed migrants shocked by the realities of living on the mean streets of Newham.

2011-03-21T17:21:00.003Z

Forced to live rough, many have taken to drinking on the streets.

The comedy mayor has promised a clampdown.

Stratford: centre of the Universe...

2011-03-18T00:41:00.006Z

Or so it seems since the comedy mayor got dibbs on the Olympic Stadium.

The latest confirmation is the news that celebrity Mockney, Jamie Oliver will be expanding his Ministry of Food project (fits in nicely with the comedy mayor's on-going Orwellian theme) to... you guessed it, Stratford.

I understand this is part funded by Leaside Regeneration Ltd (Chief Executive: Newham Councillor Paul Brickell, The comedy mayor's Executive Member for Olympics and Public Affairs).

Bon appetit.

Sir Robin Wales gets my full support.

2011-03-18T00:06:00.005Z

At last, a good idea from the comedy mayor!

LocalGov reports that he's calling on chancellor George Osborne to make Newham one of ten ‘enterprise zones’. This would enable Newham Council to cut businesses rates for firms operating in the borough in order to encourage growth.

More importantly, the comedy mayor has cited the Royal Docks as a potential enterprise zone with an emphasis on encouraging High-Tech companies to move in.

All highly commendable. However, there are a few provisos: should the chancellor go along with Wales' proposal (and I don't see why he shouldn't as they are ideological brethren), the comedy mayor should ensure that Newham's young people are best placed to take up any job opportunities that will occur as a result. And he should give caste-iron guarantees that any influence the Council has over business rates will not adversely effect the Council Tax insofar as residents will not be burdened with a sudden and dramatic rise.

Knowing the comedy mayor, I half expect that there is some ulterior motive here that will be beneficial to his Olympic Stadium gamble. But, until that comes to light, he has my full support on this.

I'm now going to lie down in a dark room for a very, very long time!

Wellcome Trust’s £1 Billion bid for Olympic Park… what size loan will Comedy Mayor contemplate for counter-bid “partner”?

2011-03-17T23:51:00.005Z

I jest of course… well, I hope I do!
The Wellcome Trust has already been short-listed by the Olympic Delivery Authority to submit a proposal for the purchase and long-term management of the residential properties in the Athletes Village. The news is that it’s announced that it’s eyeing up the freehold on the entire Olympic Park.

The Wellcome Trust’s brief statement can be found here.

Saving £145,000 plus a year... instantly!

2011-03-16T23:19:00.005Z

I sometimes feel sorry for most of Newham's councillors. It cannot be easy, sitting around not scrutinising the comedy mayor and having bugger-all say in the decisions that impact on the lives of their constituents.

So I've come up with a plan to make them feel wanted and useful AND save the Council some money.

For the financial year 2009 to 2010, it cost £145,816 to have the Newham Mag pushed through the letterboxes of the Hoi Polloi. So I thought it would be a great idea if the councillors did it... get some practice in for that once in every four years event: leafleting to let the voters know they're still breathing and want to be re-elected.

Job done!

Casino decision WAS a surprise…

2011-03-16T16:01:00.008Z

But only to Aspers' rival bidders. It seems they’re now crying foul. The other bidders, City & Eastern Ltd and Apollo Genting, are confused by the decision; especially in light of the original terms of the Gambling Act 2005, which said applications for large casinos should only be accepted from areas where there was a ‘need for and ability’ to create regeneration. Both are arguing that Stratford is currently getting a fair bit of regeneration.

The Council’s Licensing Committee Chairman, Councillor Ian Corbett (£31,000 plus £10,000 standard allowance mayoral advisor and loyal side-kick) is quoted in today’s Recorder as saying: “The committee considered the merits of each application and followed a rigorous selection process, which was carried out in strict adherence to the guidelines”. Hurrah!

The comedy mayor added: “This announcement forms part of our wider, ambitious, transformation plans for Newham. We will work with the successful bidder to ensure our residents benefit from the extra investment into the area and that there are job opportunities”. – Well, I guess that’s true for some consultants, out of work relatives of Labour Party dignitaries, and down on their luck former councillors and senior council staff.

Interestingly, the two other bidders were looking at sites south of the borough – the “forgotten Newham”.

Stratford’s going to be a busy place. If I were running an entertainment venue there I’d be laughing. Kerching!
[Photo top left: the comedy mayor in his newly designed office at the Olympic Stadium]

No surprise there then...

2011-03-12T01:10:00.005Z

I see Aspers have been selected to develop a casino in Westfield's Stratford City. No point owning a stadium if there are no other attractions around to pull in the punters.

The comedy mayor seems to like a punt, look at how much of Newham's money he's put up as a stake on his stadium for the people gamble. And he's gambling on people forgetting that the money could have been used to save jobs and services.

Return of the Keystone Kops.

2011-03-08T16:00:00.006Z

Having read the comedy mayor's dismissive view of PCSOs in last week’s Recorder, I should have seen this coming. Speaking on behalf of himself and his many alter egos, he is quoted as saying: “We don’t think PCSOs work and if we get the police officers we will deploy them on the things that matter to people”. That the comedy mayor thinks that the Metropolitan Police don’t know what they are doing when it comes to dealing with crime isn’t news to me. When the parks constabulary fiasco first came to light, the comedy mayor’s crime-fighting sidekick (his then advisor for anti-social behaviour) told me that the council needed to have its own constabulary policing the street as the Met wasn’t up to the job.

The current plan is to request that Newham Council enforcement officers voluntarily sign up to the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme giving them powers that former parks constabulary officers would have salivated over.

In essence, it all means that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police may grant a limited range of police powers to employees of non-police organisations who contribute towards community safety.

Those Powers being:
The power to:
require the name and address of a person who has committed a criminal offence that causes injury, alarm and distress to another person or damage or loss of another's property, or to whom a penalty notices has been issued;
require the name and address of a person acting in an anti-social manner;
require a person to stop drinking in a designated public place and confiscate and dispose of alcohol being consumed in a designated place;
confiscate alcohol from young people;
confiscate cigarettes and tobacco products from young people;
require the removal of abandoned vehicles;
stop cyclists if they are suspected of having committed the offence of riding on a footpath;
stop a vehicle for the purposes of an inspection;
control traffic for the purpose of escorting abnormal loads, for the purpose of conducting a traffic survey, and for other purposes
require the name and address of a driver or pedestrian who fails to follow appropriate directions;
photograph a person who has been given a penalty notice away from a police station.

The power to issue a fixed penalty notice:
for riding a bicycle on footpath;
for dog fouling;
for littering;
for graffiti and fly posting;
to parents of truants.

The power to issue a penalty notice for disorder for:
the sale of alcohol to person aged under 18;
buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption by a person aged under 18;
consumption of alcohol by a person aged under 18 or allowing such consumption;
delivery of alcohol to a person aged under 18 or allowing such delivery;
consumption of alcohol in a designated public space;
possession by a person aged under 18 of an adult firework;
possession of a some restricted fireworks;
breach of a fireworks curfew;
supply of excessively loud fireworks;
throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare;
wasting police time or giving a false report;
using the telephones in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;
making hoax calls to the fire services;
behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress;
trespassing on a railway;
throwing stones, etc. at trains or other things on railways.

(What? No mention of crossbows?)

The last one fits nicely with previous draconian Keystone policy, as I once witnessed three parks constables questioning four young lads (all aged 10) for skimming stones across a pond – names and addresses were taken.

These powers are much the same as those of a PCSO but WITHOUT the power to detain for a maximum of 30 minutes.

The difference is, these “accredited” officers will be under the direct supervision of the comedy mayor. I’ve always thought there is something disturbing about his desire to control policing in the borough.

This is an issue that requires monitoring; you never know, one of the current crop of councillors might evolve into a vertebrate and put this under some scrutiny.

“The deadliest bullshit is odorless and transparent” ~ William Gibson.

2011-03-04T23:41:00.005Z

Not slow off the mark, the damage control department in Building 1000 have been hard at work drafting a rebuttal to the BBC interview with the Council’s Chief Executive. A little odd, as the BBC actually quote the CE and I see no signs of any amendments or corrections on the BBC report.

In any event, here is the rebuttal and my comments (in bold):

"In response to a media story about funding of the Olympic Stadium bid, we would like to point out:A Newham Council spokesperson said: " Newham Council will not be lending to West Ham United or its owners. A Stadium Company would be set up to run the Stadium and this company would loan from Newham Council. West Ham United would rent the stadium from this company."

As far as I know, this is true.

"Local government finance rules only allow us to borrow for investment so we would not be able to use this for spending on services as this spend would not be repaid. The funding we will provide for the Stadium is a commercial loan provided on the basis that it will be repaid with interest.”

This is playing with semantics. Local authorities can use the money they borrow for any purpose they wish so long as it is legal and complies with certain guidelines. It cannot borrow in the short-term against annual revenue. If it borrows from the Public Works Loan Board it can apply for a capitalisation direction and, if granted, could use the money to fund jobs etc – Newham’s Chief Executive acknowledged this in his interview with the BBC. The overriding proviso is that the authority must give evidence that it can cover the repayments. As this states that the loan will be a commercial loan, it is likely that the Council is borrowing from a bank (which begs the question: if it is truly a WHUFC bid, why didn’t the club borrow the money?), so it is safe to assume that one condition of the loan is that it is used specifically for the purchase of the lease on the Stadium. Which means that in this current economic climate, Newham Council has used resources to procure a loan for a business venture. Why?

"Any borrowing the council undertakes to finance the loan for the Stadium will not cost our taxpayers a penny, nor will it impact on services. It has nothing to do with our revenue budget, which is for the council's day-to-day spending because repayments from the stadium company will cover the cost of council borrowing.”

Only if the venture works. Furthermore, the loan will be for a period of ten to twenty years, it is not until the loan is fully repaid that we can honestly assess the financial veracity of the claims made for this venture.

"Newham Council provide services to residents all year round, which is why we're best-placed to ensure they get the most from the stadium bid. In the case of the proposed loan to the Stadium Company the borrowing would be supported by repayments plus interest from the company. There would be no impact on our day-to-day spending or on council tax to meet the cost of financing it."

Maybe not in the next financial year as the current government are assisting local authorities in keeping council tax bills at the current rates (a fact conveniently not mentioned by the Mayor). However, the Chief Executive, in his interview with the BBC when asked if council taxpayers would have to foot the bill if the venture didn’t pan out, said: “On a theoretical perspective that's true.” Which is bollocks for “yes”.

And what has the fact that the Council is a provider of year round services have to do with running a stadium? Will we have dustcart races? Will animal welfare officers battle dangerous dogs?

The BBC has exposed the truth behind the spin. This rebuttal is a poor attempt at justifying the extravagant whim of a Mayor who is pandered to by compliant senior officers and indefferent, lazy councillors.

“A half-truth is a whole lie” ~ Yiddish Proverb

2011-03-03T23:51:00.006Z

It’s all getting a bit confusing; well, for the comedy mayor and his Chief Executive it is. In an interview on Tuesday with BBC London’s Paul Ross, the comedy mayor stated that the loan Newham Council is procuring to finance his foray into the entertainment business by securing a long-term lease on the Olympic Stadium cannot be used for anything else because of the rules of local government. Well, I know that’s bullshit as I’ve spoken to the Secretary of the Public Works Loans Board who assured me that a local authority might use borrowed money for any purpose it wishes.

Yet in a BBC interview with the Chief Executive later in the week, Mr Bromley-Derry acknowledges that the money could have been used for other purposes. But, more worrying, Newham’s most senior public servant finally admitted that, should this speculative venture fail, Newham’s Council Tax payers will have to re-pay the £40 million loan.

Interestingly, in his interview with Paul Ross, the comedy mayor introduced the notion that Newham would gain redevelopment land which, in effect, means the whole deal costs nothing; always a new twist with the comedy mayor. He claimed the deal will earn Newham “miwions”. The truth is that the loan will have to be paid off before the stadium folly can start to return any money to the authority - the term of the loan will be anything from 10 to 20 years.

This is going to be a huge shock to Newham councillors who SHOULD have scrutinised the bid instead of taking the easy option of accepting the comedy mayor’s word at face value. It took me ten minutes to find out that the loan money could be put to other uses, and as elected members they have a right, and a duty, to interrogate the Chief Officer on the finer details of the bid. That they didn’t is a damning indictment on their collective claim that they represent the best interests of their constituents.

Quoting the BBC interview: “Mr Bromley-Derry also admitted it was "an issue" that council officers instrumental in financing West Ham's stadium bid could later move into well paid jobs with the club”. This will no-doubt enrage all those council employees that have the spectre of redundancy looming over them. That Bromley-Derry had no qualms giving the interview illustrates the arrogance of this current town hall administration and the contempt with which it views the intellectual capacity of its employees and its constituents.

“The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.” ~ Bertrand Russell

2011-03-02T23:09:00.005Z

I see Barry Hearn is getting all hot under the collar about West Ham United FC moving to the Olympic Stadium. The Guardian reports that he will probably take legal action if Newham Council’s bid is accepted. I think he’s wasting his time and money.

The key is in the fact that the bid is really Newham Council’s (or, more truthfully, the comedy mayor’s); WHUFC will just be leasing the ground. I’ve already voiced my suspicion that it will be Gold and Sullivan who will be joint shareholders with the Council in the “Stadium Company”, giving them a revenue stream independent of WHUFC that will compensate – in part – for the poor return on their original investment in the club.

Slipping into my Nostradamus of Newham mode, I predict that the Hammers will do one season at the Olympic Stadium then it will be announced that the venue isn’t conducive to premiership football and the club will trundle back to the Boleyn ground – no doubt, with all sorts of planning permissions tucked under arm. Gold and Sullivan will still be making money out of the Stadium Company and the comedy mayor will have his very own Luitpoldhain.

"Action expresses priorities" ~ Mohandas Gandhi

2011-03-01T23:43:00.010Z

On the 1st December 2010 I reported that Newham Council spent £88,240.00 on youth knife and gun crime for the accounting period 2009 to 2010; for 2010 to 2011 (the current financial year) the projected spend is £95,000.00.

So I’m sure all Newham residents will be pleased to learn that, to-date, the Comedy Mayor has spent £144,950.20 promoting his Olympic Stadium bid.

The breakdown is as follows (from Newham Council FOI response):

To date the Council has paid £38,447.50 for financial due diligence and LBN advice on the Stadium Company Business Plan development, and committed for costs of up to another £12,725 of advice as part of the Process. This advice has been provided by KPMG.
Our legal costs already incurred will be up to £50,000. This advice has been provided by Trowers and Hamlin
Property Advice – We have paid £9,720 for property related advice on the stadium project. This advice has been provided by Property Consultancy Limited
Internal promotional and printing Costs have amounted to £3,524.37.
LBN hospitality costs of £233.33 have been incurred towards a House of Commons event on the stadium proposals.
£300 Transport costs have been incurred.

I wonder how much Gold and Sullivan have contributed to the bid process.

Were I a Newham councillor at this moment in time, I wouldn't show my face in public!

“My very first pledge when I was elected in 2002 was to spend your money wisely, and that remains a priority” ~ Sir Robin Wales, Mayor’s view May 2009.

“Politicians are exposed through their actions rather than their words.” ~ Sir Robin Wales, Mayor’s view June 2010.

"Safety remains your number one concern and so we are investing more in making you safer in Newham. Safety is a basic right so we will never apologise for being tough on those who try to make the lives of the hard-working majority a misery." - Mayor's Contract 2010-2011.

It's all kicking off!

2011-02-28T22:35:00.006Z

I couldn’t make tonight’s Union/residents’ protest against the comedy mayor’s cuts, but I wish I had.

I’ve been told that the Council had employed security guards to prevent protesters entering the Town Hall; it seems that, initially, the security guards outnumbered the police. One protester told me that, when the march reached the Town Hall there was the usual chants and jeering directed at councillors as they turned up for the meeting.

When the comedy mayor turned up he threw a hissy fit and asked the police officer in charge why the protesters had been allowed into the Town Hall forecourt. He was told that the gates were open (and it is a public space). Wales’ tantrum seems to have upset some in the crowd and a number decided they’d make a break for the Town Hall doors and try to get into the building. A few scuffles ensued between some protesters and the security guards. More police were requested.

I’ve been told that a young lad of 14 was taken away in handcuffs (crying) but was later released on street bail.

Earlier today I got a call from inside Building 1000. There was some leafleting activity taking place near the entrance of the building informing staff of tonight’s protest and inviting them to join the march. I was told that a directive was quickly circulated around the building stating that any staff who did attend the march may well jeopardise their employment (I wasn’t told if this was verbal or written).

Finally, the rumour is that the comedy mayor’s new enforcer (consultant Steve Swayne) is being put up in a Hotel for a night or two – even though he lives within driving distance of Newham – and he is to be joined by the comedy mayor and a number of the Council's chosen few to celebrate tonight’s successful cost-cutting exercise. Chin-chin!

Freedom of Information Requests are winging their way to Building 1000 as I type.

The importance of things: more gibberish from Building 1000.

2011-02-27T17:59:00.008Z

I see the comedy mayor has developed a programme to get people to do things because things are good for you. In fact, it’s so important he’s recorded a 1984 style video feed on the Council’s web-site to tell us just how much he wants us to do things. I watched the video twice and had no idea what he was on about, so to avoid any confusion, here’s a transcript:

“We believe that its really important that people in Newham get involved in sport and activity of any sort. That’s why we run the biggest free sport and activity programme in London over the summer months. We particularly [I think that’s the word he used] want our young people to get involved in sport and activity, any sort of activity, things which involve you doing things so you’re investing in yourself – very important. So what we’re doing is, we’re launching “inspiring people” and that’s our brand, that’s our initiative where we’re saying to people lets build to the 2012 games, lets build up that, lets get involved, lets get active, lets take part in sport, lets try different things. Doesn’t matter what age you are, doesn’t matter what type of activity you get involved in; anything from walking to playing sports to even playing sports very badly. Doesn’t matter but get involved, get active. Our inspiring people programme building up from now to 2012 is going to be our way of saying this is your opportunity to, to change your lifestyle and do something a bit more healthy.

So what are we talking about? It isn’t just sport, it’s activities; its volunteering; it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, being creative; it’s its taking part in musical things; its being dance, anything; its going to classes of some sort that you’ve always been interested; it’s just going out and doing something. Go to your library, take out a book. The idea is that people who do more things, who get more involved, it leads to a healthier lifestyle and that’s something, and more fun as well lifestyle, and that’s something that’s important for all of us.

So what’s involved in this programme? There are six areas that we are going to focus on. We want people to have a go at sport that’s important because it really makes you healthier and can be lots of fun. We want people to be creative. Is there an arts thing you want to do? Music? Paint, whatever? Painting? Whatever, something that’s creative that you find satisfying for yourself. Getting involved in an event. We have lots of events lots of free events where our pub… where, where the whole population of Newham can come together and just enjoy themselves. volunteering in the community. We have the biggest volunteer programme in the country and our idea is that people should volunteer for things, take part in things, help people to do things. And that can be volunteering from all sorts of things, and you can help people in the garden; you can go and visit older people; you can help to organ… you can help to run events. Lots of different things. Those are the things that matter to us, but in addition, doing things if you’re not in employment, doing these sort of things, getting active being involved in things that can help you then lead into a job. It can certainly give you the, the impetus. We know that from our research in giving the impetus to give you more chance of a job so that’s really important to many of our residents as well.

Lots of different opportunities, lots of different things you can do. Why don’t you have a go then between now and 2012?”

Clear as mud. You’d hope that the person running the borough, and who has committed Newham to taking over the Olympic Stadium (and who has made assurances that the money spent on the project couldn’t be used for anything else, and that there’ll be no further cost to the people of Newham), is a concise thinker, able to communicate his ideas for the future in a clear and easily understood way.

I thought there are going to be six areas that will be focused upon: sport; creative activities; events; volunteering to dig up gardens (very Big Society – good to see Wales displaying his Tory credentials with pride); and… what are the other two?

Had this been done by any other public figure, I would shrug it off as a well meaning (but garbled) attempt to get people involved in a variety of activities and events. But we all know by now that this is a cynical ploy to pull Newham residents into signing up to his Olympic Stadium venture.

Let’s hope this inspires the people of Newham to start questioning this clown and his stooges a lot more.

However, no one can accuse the comedy mayor of not investing in himself.

Newham Council Hokey Cokey.

2011-02-26T11:23:00.006Z

He's back in the fold after a week of chilly isolation as an independent. Newham Councillor Sharaf Mahmood is now listed on the Council web-site as Labour.

Isn't it wonderful how forgiving the Newham Labour Group is, to have a member leave the flock only to welcome him back with open arms once he repents.

Why did he jump in the first place? The rumour is that one of his business enterprises sells alcohol and it was alleged that a sale was made to someone who is under-age. I have no idea if this is true (if it is, I imagine that he either left the group in protest or was excluded from the group as a result of the alleged unlawful transaction).

But, what I do find intriguing is the bizarre workings of the chaotic Labour Group. It appears that its members can be in the group, then out of the group, then back in again at will. Yet I wonder if the same flexible arrangements would hold for a councillor who had the temerity to question a mayoral decision? Or, heaven for-fend, should have the spine to ask for details of the nebulous Newham Council Olympic Stadium bid?

Still... head down, keep quiet, rah rah rah;that's what it's all about!

Newham Mayor: getting priorities in order.

2011-02-24T12:01:00.004Z

The comedy mayor has truly lost the plot. The Sun reports that he's written to the Director General of the BBC demanding that the EastEnders title sequence be changed to highlight his latest business venture, the Olympic Stadium.

Not a word from Newham's Primus inter pares about Save the Children's report (as covered by the Newham Recorder) that lists Newham as having one in four children living in severe poverty, the third worst area in the country.

If only the comedy mayor could have summoned up the same enthusiasm for the Newham Inner-London rating campaign as he has shown for his Olympic folly.

The man's an idiot, Newham councillor's are buffoons and Newham Labour should be ashamed.

“He who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass.” ~ Edgar R. Fiedler.

2011-02-23T22:37:00.006Z

Both the comedy mayor and the Chief Executive have stated that the £40 million loan to finance Newham Council’s share in the Stadium Company is money that cannot be used for any other purpose; that’s not true.

Today I telephoned the Public Works Loan Board of the Debt Management Office. I asked if local authority borrowing is project specific. I was told it isn’t. I was told that a local authority can use any money it borrows any way it wishes so long at can assure the lender that the repayments will be met. A local authority cannot borrow money as a short-term loan against its annual settlement.

I asked if a local authority could use any borrowed money to cover a shortfall in staff salaries. I was told that this is possible and can be achieved by requesting a Capitalisation Direction.

However, I was also told that, so long as a local authority proves that it can cover the repayment of a loan, once it has the money it can do as it wishes insofar as it does nothing illegal.

This begs a few questions. When Newham Council eventually enters into a loan agreement with a potential lender to fund the comedy mayor's business venture, it will need to offer some security that it will repay the loan. I think it is highly unlikely that a lender will hand over such a considerable amount of money on the promise of payment from expected future stadium revenue. So how will Newham Council guarantee the repayment?

It also raises the question: why is Newham Council entering into such an odd business arrangement? The comedy mayor is quoted as bemoaning the fact that Newham Council HAD to secure the mythical Olympic legacy and he’s questioned why the government hasn’t taken on the responsibility. If he is that concerned, why contemplate committing so much of the Council’s limited resources (senior officers’ time; printing and communications assets; the comedy mayor’s considerable leadership qualities etc) into securing the Council's involvement in such a venture if it should be the responsibility of the national government, or at the very least the GLA?

The only legacy the comedy mayor is thinking of is his own.

“Why did the local council and a medium-sized football team have to come in and rescue the Olympic [Stadium] legacy?” ~ Sir Robin Wales.

2011-02-23T20:39:00.004Z

Indeed. This quote comes from an interview with the comedy mayor in The MJ, the readers of which are top tier local government personnel & decision makers - drinks all round. I’ll leave you to read the interview if you so wish.

However, it’s worth asking: DID the local council and a medium-sized football team have to come in and rescue the Olympic legacy? I’m sure there are plenty of Newham residents that are asking the same question.

It’s also interesting to note that Newham spends £5 million a year on the “Workplace” project. Each job costing Newham Council £3,000 (1,666 jobs a year) – isn’t it ironic that it was announced in today’s Newham Recorder that up to 200 council jobs will go this year and 15 PCSO’s will be axed (safer Newham - Safety remains a major concern and so we are investing more in making you safer in Newham. Safety is a basic right so we will never apologise for being tough on those who try to make the lives of the hard-working majority a misery. – Mayor’s priority number 2).

The comedy mayor also wants to see a re-localisation of business rates… there goes the local economy. And, wouldn’t this make the Council’s business partnership with Gold and Sullivan more than a little suspect?

You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

"Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody." ~ Calvin Coolidge.

2011-02-21T23:27:00.010Z

"I've seen lots of nonsense printed about the cost of the bid so let’s get to the facts”. So states the comedy mayor in the current Newham Mag regarding Newham Council’s bid to run the Olympic Stadium, so lets.

To the best of my knowledge, the details of the mysterious £40 million loan have yet to be made public. Working from the premise that the money will be borrowed by Newham Council from the government, I wrote to the Treasury asking for details of the loan and whether it was true that the money could not be used for any other purpose. This is the response I got (my bold highlighting):

“HM Treasury does not hold any information within the scope of your request.

Local authorities are free to borrow, against their revenues, from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB), an executive office of the Debt Management Office, or the wider market. The function of the PWLB is to consider loan applications to local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, and if loans are advanced to collect the repayments. Local authority borrowing is not necessarily project specific, and is governed by the 2004 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Prudential Code.

Her Majesty’s Treasury does not hold any information regarding individual local authority loans from the wider market. However, PWLB loans to local authorities are published monthly, including date of advance, type interest rate and period of loan.

The PWLB’s lending arrangements are set out in circular 148.

PWLB interest rates are calculated as per circular 149.

Local authorities are autonomous bodies and can on-lend to other bodies. Accordingly, the terms of any loan by the London Borough of Newham to West Ham Football Club would be a matter for the local authority.”

I checked the PWLB site and to-date Newham Council have not borrowed any money. That means that the council is waiting until a date nearer the take over of the stadium to borrow the money, or Newham Council is borrowing from “the wider market”; if the latter is the case, why couldn’t WHUFC have borrowed the money?

The answer to that is in the fact that bid was never really a West Ham Football club bid. From day one the bid has been Newham Council’s and that is made evident by the fact that the Council will have a 50 percent share in the “Stadium Company”. So far the claim is that WHUFC will be Newham Council’s partner in the Stadium Company, but I envisage that the real joint share-holders will be Gold and Sullivan giving them a new stream of income to go some way to recoup the losses they’ve made in their WHUFC investment.

The comedy mayor and Newham’s Chief Executive have both claimed that the loan money couldn’t be used for anything else. The Treasury response seems to suggest otherwise. I’m awaiting receipt of a copy of the CIPFA Prudential Code, but I have taken a cursory look at how other local authorities interpret the code. Not one that I checked has borrowed to bail out a local business.

One proviso of the code that the Chief Executive has made much of is that such a loan can only be used for “investment” i.e. capital spends. Hmmm, now what capital investments could Newham Council make with £40 million?

Newham Council was expecting £252 million from the government’s now defunct Building Schools for the Future initiative, to be given over a 15 to 20 year period. £40 million is around 16 percent of the expected funding (about 2 and a bit years worth); Schools? Stadium? Schools? Stadium? No contest – entertainment over education every time.

But, all this is academic. The truth is that Newham Council is securing a loan so that the comedy mayor, a few Newham Councillors and senior council officers have a new toy to play with. The details of how that loan will be repaid and by whom remain unanswered.

Football crazy!

2011-02-21T00:15:00.006Z

Ordinarily I don’t report anything on this blog unless I double-source it. However, this is so intriguing, and was recounted to me by a Newham resident whom I have no reason to disbelieve, that I felt it worth passing on – with the proviso that, if anyone reading this can confirm , or refute it, would you please do so in the comments.

The individual in question told me that she attended a community meeting organised by council officers. Early in the meeting she made it clear that she’d like to make a comment on an agenda item. Before she was given the chance to speak, a council officer informed the meeting that such public meetings are being conducted under new “rules”. Any individual “disrupting” a meeting will be shown a yellow card. If they continue to disrupt the meeting the will be shown a red card and asked to leave the meeting.

I asked if she was pulling my leg, but she assured me that that was exactly what was said at the meeting.

“It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals” ~ Felix Frankfurter.

2011-02-19T22:35:00.003Z

No doubt, this is the comedy mayor's credo.

I noticed that the Council's reserve propaganda outlet ran with a story about how local businesses that have the word "Olympic" in their names are falling foul of the LOCOG and could be hit with substantial fines.

So, in light of the comedy mayor's current re-branding I sent the following to the LOCOG: "The Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales, is now referred to on the Council web site as the "Olympic" Mayor.

As LOCOG is threatening legal action on local business that use the "Olympic" title without prior permission. Will you be taking similar action against Sir Robin?"

I expect, Newham Council's Trading Standards officers will be knocking down his West Wing office door first thing Monday morning.

Mann Traoch, Gott Lauch. ~ Yiddish proverb.

2011-02-18T23:51:00.006Z

I wonder if the comedy mayor is having sleepless nights over the fact that the Government have announced that any surplus money from the 2012 games will go back to the taxpayers (as reported in the Daily Telegraph).

The host city contract signed with the IOC guaranteed that a share of the surplus would go towards a legacy plan, the Government intends to renege on the contract; let's not forget that the comedy mayor has bid for the Olympic Stadium to save the games legacy for the nation.

No doubt Newham's Primus inter pares was counting on a share of the funds to give a kick-start to his venture into show business.

Can I see a Council Tax hike on the horizon?

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...

2011-02-18T23:04:00.004Z

The Telegraph has reported that, in the next few weeks, Newham Council will have the opportunity to purchase several hundred tickets for the Olympic Games. We know the comedy mayor has reserved two of the tickets for President Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it's worth contemplating who will be the lucky recipients of the remaining tickets; former Newham employees maybe?

My money is on: The comedy mayor and Newham councillors and their extended families (obviously); a number of senior council officers; Gold, Sullivan and Brady; various consultants; and, movers and shakers in the entertainments industry (The comedy mayor needs to drum up business for his Amphitheatrum Cambrium).

I'll be sitting by my front door waiting for my ticket to drop through the letterbox.

It's official (well, in Building 1000): Sir Robin joins the Pantheon of the Gods!

2011-02-18T15:47:00.003Z

The comedy Mayor is no longer just the Mayor of Newham, he's now the
Olympic Mayor!

Newham Councillor goes Indie?

2011-02-18T14:27:00.005Z

Green Street East Councillor Sharaf Mahmood is now listed on the Council web-site as an Independent... is there something we don't know?

Update: I spoke to Cllr Mahmood on the phone. He confirmed that he is now an Independent; I didn't press him further as I got the impression my call wasn't too welcome. He did say that he has a few things to sort out.

Yesterday, Tunisia and Egypt; today, Bahrain and Newham!

[T]he Games will be "nothing but a vanity parade" if there is not a meaningful legacy ~ Sir Robin Wales, Mayor of Newham.

2011-02-16T11:57:00.011Z

This is my quote of the Century - taken from Sky News. Oh, the irony!

“Pride that dines on vanity, sups on contempt” ~ Benjamin Franklin.

Let the games begin...

2011-02-11T15:40:00.006Z

So it seems that the comedy mayor has the green light for his plans to move into the entertainment industry. No big surprise there - was there any doubt?

Boris and the Conservative government are going to agree the Olympic Park Legacy Company's decision as it gets a potential headache off their collective hands.

But now the really interesting investigations start. For example, will Gold and Sullivan be share-holders or board members of the "Stadium Company" (the special purpose entity that the Council is setting up to run the stadium)? Which Newham Councillors will be board members, representing Newham Council's probable controlling interest in the company? Will other organisations be involved in the company? And if so, to what extent? Will there be any Newham resident board members (as there should be)?

And it'll be worth watching who gets the plum jobs at the stadium and which consulting companies will milk what will no-doubt be a lucrative cash cow.

Wales, you're fired!

2011-02-10T22:35:00.005Z

Baron Sugar's no fan of the comedy mayor's bid to run the Olympic Stadium.

Exclusive video footage: Sir Robin and Councillors celebrate Stadium bid good news.

2011-02-10T00:32:00.001Z

Is it really West Ham United FC's bid? Somehow I don't think so.

2011-02-09T23:56:00.004Z

BBC sport reporter Adrian Warner reports on his blog that the West Ham bid is just short of a done deal. No surprises there.

However, I think the bid should be re-labelled the Newham Council bid. Today I was sent the text of Newham Council Chief Executive's responses to staff questions about the bid that have been posted on the Council's intranet.

One question is: are we loaning money to West Ham United FC?

Mr Bromley-Derry responnds: No. Newham Council will not be lending to West Ham United or its owners. A Stadium Company would be set up to run the Stadium and this company would loan from Newham Council. West Ham United would rent the stadium from this company.

Begging the question: who owns the Stadium Company? My money is on the London Borough of Newham being the major share-holder of this new venture.

Looks like the good people of Newham are now in the entertainment business!

For anyone who might be interested, here's the full text of the Council's intranet Q & A:

Why should the council invest in this when it is cutting services?

Local government finance rules only allow us to borrow for investment so we would not be able to use this for spending on services as this spend would not be repaid. The funding we will provide for the Stadium is a commercial loan provided on the basis that it will be repaid with interest. Any borrowing the council undertakes to finance the loan for the Stadium will not cost our taxpayers a penny, nor will it impact on services as it has nothing to do with our revenue budget, which is for the council's day-to-day spending because repayments from the stadium company will cover the cost of council borrowing.

Are we loaning money to West Ham United FC?

No. Newham Council will not be lending to West Ham United or its owners. A Stadium Company would be set up to run the Stadium and this company would loan from Newham Council. West Ham United would rent the stadium from this company.

Why is the council best placed to provide this loan?

Newham Council provide services to residents all year round, which is why we're best-placed to ensure they get the most from the stadium bid. In the case of the proposed loan to the Stadium Company the borrowing would be supported by repayments plus interest from the company. There would be no impact on our day-to-day spending or on council tax to meet the cost of financing it.

What happens if West Ham United's financial situation or position in the league changes?

We have carried out testing of different scenarios relating to West Ham United's league status and financial position, and have based our loan on a conservative scenario.

West Ham United have been in the Premier League in over 80% of seasons since 1992. We have a very robust business case which includes the possibility that West Ham United may not remain in the Premier League.

But it's important to remember that our bid is based on much more than football alone. That's why we've got backing from key partners such as Essex County Cricket Club and Live Nation. Once the conversion has taken place, it will have a concert capacity of 91,000 - making it one of the largest in Europe.

What does the bid involve?

Our plans are based on the stadium being in use for 365 days a year - not just every other weekend for football matches. It's about having a total package that benefits the whole community. Schools will be able to hold their sports days in the stadium and there will be a dedicated sports science department. The stadium will be developed into a multi-use venue that will be able to offer accommodation for football, athletics, cricket, live entertainment events, community activities, private hire and more. This multi-use approach is about getting the most out of the venue while guaranteeing access for our residents.

Our bid will also bring benefits for the Green Street area as the vacating of Upton Park football ground will act as a catalyst for the regeneration of this area.

Why do we need to get involved? Why don't we just let Tottenham Hotspur take over the ground?

It is good that two bids have been received - this will ensure there is competition to provide the best possible community benefits from the future use of the stadium. We believe that our joint bid with West Ham United will do that.

So that's okay then!

"A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw

2011-02-02T23:58:00.006Z

Here's an interesting bit of news; certainly something worth following up on.

The Government is planning to scrap a scheme which means councils with relatively low levels of debt subsidise housing authorities with high levels of debt, Newham being one of those subsidised councils. The payments are paid through a fund called the Housing Revenue Account.

However, it is asking certain councils to make a one-off payment to help authorities with massive debts. Newham will receive £552.6 million.

So why is the Comedy Mayor going into partnership with WHUFC to obtain the lease on the Olympic Stadium? He could go it alone with plenty of filthy lucre to spare!

I've no idea how and when Newham Council will receive this windfall, and no-doubt there will be restrictions on how it can be spent (the development of a Euro-Disney style theme park perhaps?), but it will be worth trying to find out...

"So I rang up my local swimming baths. I said 'Is that the local swimming baths?' He said 'It depends where you're calling from.'" ~ Tim Vine

2011-01-26T23:33:00.003Z

The ITV news programme London Tonight reported that the future of the Olympic Aquatic Centre is in doubt.

Now, had the comedy mayor shown an interest in running that, he would have had my full support (with the proviso that should the venue not break even, shortfall funding came from the GLA and national government).

To my way of thinking, that would tick a lot of boxes: sporting legacy; a venue that Newham residents, visitors to London and other Londoners could really get the full benefit of; and, somewhere for the comedy mayor to tout his free swims and other wonderful gifts he bestows upon us.

That would make a real splash!

"It's far better to have a financial partner who shares your vision rather than a bank." ~ Karren Brady, Vice-chairman WHUFC

2011-01-22T22:21:00.003Z

AS quoted in the Daily Mail. No mention of the preferential interest rate, nor of where the liability for the loan falls if West Ham renege on the loan re-payments.

Come to think of it, as we now have this "deal" sold to us as a partnership, what percentage of the loan re-payments will West Ham United be liable for?

I wonder if a Newham councillor will be good enough to enlighten us?

Because I'm too lazy to re-write...

2011-01-22T20:41:00.008Z

I posted this on Newham's E-Democracy Forum (yes, there is such a site and it is called that) tonight:

I'd venture to argue that a seat in the House of Lords is in the bag for Sir Robin of Westfield.

Listening to the Council's Chief Executive's (Kim Bromley-by-Bow) interview with BBC Sport, I think my suspicion regarding the Council being a major player in running the Olympic Stadium after the games is pretty close to the mark.

I'm starting to think that the Newham Council/WHUFC bid has been in the bag from day one.

If the primary objective in considering any "bid" has been "legacy" (athletics "legacy"; education; local economic regeneration etc etc), the Spurs bid never really passed muster.

Let's not forget that TWO successive governments have banged on about the importance of the "legacy" - so one would think that either a Labour government of a Conservative one would feel some obligation to fund that "legacy".

It does seem that, if reports coming out of Newham Council are true, the government is funding the "legacy" but only to the tune of £40 Million.

Newham Council and WHUFC will be co-lessees of the stadium and I can only guess that means that both will be equally liable for the re-payment on the loan. Newham Council is gambling on receipts and revenue from any events other than West Ham home games will cover its portion of the loan re-payments.

If all goes well, the government will be shot of a potential headache, the owners of WHUFC will be able to use £40 Million of the proceeds from the sale of the Upton Park site for whatever they wish and Sir Robin of GoodTimes will have an impressive new venue to stage more ZanuLabourCouncil rallies.

If, on the other hand, it all goes reels of cotton, the government will be shot of a potential headache, the owners of WHUFC will be able to use £40 Million from the proceeds of the sale of the Upton Park site for whatever they wish and Sir Robin of YourCouncillorsVotedForItToo will have an impressive new venue to stage more ZanuLabourCouncil rallies, and the people of Newham will be responsible for paying off the tick on a £40 million white elephant.

Magic money.

2011-01-21T21:40:00.005Z

I saw the comedy mayor on the BBC London news tonight. A reporter asked him if it was right for the poorest borough in London to lend money to West Ham United FC to assist the club’s bid for the Olympic Stadium.

Sir Robin retorted: “It’s not true. We’re lending, we’re coming, coming together with West Ham in a joint bid. We’ll, we’re taking a loan indeed which will be paid back. We can’t use the money for anything else, the rules of public finance say we can't use it for anything else; er, it’ll be paid back and at that point we’ll be getting, we’ll be getting money, we’ll be getting community benefit.”

Oh… so that’s okay then.

So, this isn’t going to be a loan – it’s a joint bid; I have seen this terminology used before in reports about the Newham/West Ham agreement but the penny didn’t drop until tonight.

My take on this is that the Council WILL have a sizeable share in the “Stadium Company” and no doubt have a say in its management. I imagine that the Council will receive income from any revenue generated by the stadium from concerts etc (maybe this is what the comedy mayor means by “we’ll be getting money”). As WHUFC will only be leasing the stadium, it now seems logical that Newham will also be a lessee and that is how the P. T. Barnum of East London can assert that the loan “indeed… will be paid back” without saying who’s going to be making the repayments, it’s going to be a partnership.

He stated that the loan money cannot be used for any other purpose. This seems a little odd. My first thought was that the money must be coming from a private financing company or bank. This would explain the limitations on the use of the loan. If this is true, a whole new can of worms has opened.

Why would a local authority that is facing a drastic cut in its funding from central government want to enter into such a business partnership with a struggling local enterprise? Furthermore, the comedy mayor would be taking a huge political risk as, regardless of how often he declares his interests and associations with the club, taking out such a loan using as collateral the goodwill of Newham Borough Council could be considered as extremely suspect.

However, it is commonly believed that the loan will come from Her Majesty’s Treasury. I’ve submitted a FOI request to the Treasury asking if this is so and, if it is, can the money be used for anything else. If I do get a response which confirms that there is such a loan and that it cannot be used for anything other than the bid for the stadium, I’d say it’s a pretty good bet that West Ham and Newham Council will come out on top.

The government want to offload it; Gold and Sullivan want to get at least some of their original investment back, understandably; the comedy mayor has aspirations to be a top class impresario and he does love a good bash on the public purse… everybody’s happy. Luvly jubbly!

A deal done.

2011-01-20T22:31:00.018Z

The loan has been approved by Newham councillors – no surprise there then. The BBC has covered the meltdown of the democratic process, and lack of any debate on the loan, comprehensively; so I think it’s safe to say that our elected representatives have made rods for their own backs. It says something when a Labour Council is prepared to use the borrowing power of a deprived local authority, which has within its geographic boundary some of the most underprivileged and dispossessed in the country, to support the business interests of multimillionaires. Shameful.

However, here’s an interesting quote from a Newham Council spokesperson: “Any loan would be made to a stadium company not West Ham. It is not funding that the council could use on other services.”

Dealing with the last sentence first, why can the council not use the funding for other purposes? It’s a loan taken out by Newham Council on behalf of the people of the borough. Fine, it may well have been procured on the basis that the money will be passed on to a “stadium company”, but what that means is that the Council has committed a good chunk of its borrowing capacity for the project. In the current economic climate, it may have been more prudent to borrow the money to shore-up services that will be cut or to ensure staff will not be made redundant.

It is a bizarre logic that sees it right and proper to invest in a venture that may secure some jobs for the future while jeopardising the jobs of Newham employees in the here and now. The claim has been made that West Ham United is a major employer within the borough, ignoring the obvious query (how many people does West Ham employ – other than players, managers etc), that assertion begs the question: will the move to Stratford see the football club employing as many, if not more, new staff than the number that will be laid-off by Newham Council? If not, there is no real economic gain.

But, I’m really interested in the “Stadium Company”. Who will be the shareholders? I would expect the London Borough of Newham to be a major shareholder as is warranted by the large investment the authority has made in the company. If that is the case, for what purpose? What will be the Council’s business plan for the company? What involvement will the Council have in the management of the enterprise?

This needs further investigation.

And there's more...

The Guardian is reporting:

"Tonight Newham council voted unanimously to provide the loan that will underwrite West Ham's plans for the stadium. The chief executive, Kim Bromley-Derry, said: "It's a loan through a special purpose vehicle [SPV], not to the club. The club will be the anchor tenant and the club will be paying a rent for their tenancy."

Bromley-Derry said the business case was not based on West Ham being a Premier League club and that the council had no concerns about either the club's owners or future over the term of the lease, believed to be for more than 200 years.

"We don't envisage there will be any further drain on the public purse for the lifespan of the stadium," Bromley-Derry said. "We're very confident in our business case." He would not comment on the size of the loan but it is believed the SPV will ultimately borrow at least £40m through the council."

If this report is true, it's a crying shame that no councillor voted against the loan proposal, or at the very least abstained.

It's not very reassuring to find out that the Chief Executive doesn't "envisage there will be any further drain on the public purse"; shouldn't he be categorically stating that there will be NO further drain on Newham residents' money?

Furthermore, we now know that the loan will be at least £40 million - so there is a possibility that it may be more... maybe the not quite £80 million originally quoted by the Telegraph.

I'm sure that, over time, this will all seem quaintly amusing, right now it's a bloody outrage.

Did you know? £40 million will just about cover a year's pay for the manager, assistant mangager, coaches and players of West Ham United FC. More jobs like these in Newham please!

[The picture above is a snap of the debate at tonight’s “Extraordinary” Council Meeting]

Quid Pro Quo?

2011-01-19T20:32:00.005Z

Reuters and Sky Sports are reporting that the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) has excluded board member Tessa Sanderson from all matters relating to the Stadium bid process. This is because the OPLC has now discovered that the Olympic champion has a personal consultancy contract with Newham Council.

An OPLC statement read: "It has come to the Olympic Park Legacy Company's (OPLC) attention that board member Tessa Sanderson has a personal consultancy contract with Newham Council. This had not been disclosed to the company.”

Funny isn’t it, that Newham Council and the Comedy Mayor conveniently forgot to mention this to the OPLC.

Can this debacle get any murkier? I wonder if she's on a £2000.00 a day retainer…

A done deal?

2011-01-14T13:32:00.002Z

I have no evidence, just a suspicion, but I believe the loan deal between Newham Council and West Ham United is done and dusted. I’m convinced that all the “extraordinary” council meetings to discuss the loan (in camera) are just window dressing with the purpose of making Labour councillors who are not in the comedy mayor’s inner-circle think they’ve had some involvement in the decision; it’s also a handy ruse to drag back-bench councillors into the frame should the fall-out from the decision be nasty.

Personally, I have no opinion regarding West Ham’s move to the Olympic Stadium other than an interest in what will happen to the area around the Boleyn ground and the impact that will have on local residents and businesses. And I don’t understand why Newham Council has to partially fund the move.

Much is made of the legacy of the games, I have no idea what that actually means but it appears that, if current arguments from the West Ham bid camp are to be believed, the West Ham bid is the only one that will guarantee that legacy. It is evident that the legacy (whatever it may be) will impact not only on the lives of Newham residents, but also on those of the other Olympic boroughs such as Hackney and Tower Hamlets. So why is West Ham’s bid being financed solely by Newham Council?

Simple answer: transparency. Even though it would make financial sense for the comedy mayor to approach the other boroughs with a partnership in mind, to do so would bring the details of the loan into the public arena; those boroughs that border Newham have something Newham does not: full debates in Council. As it stands, the loan and its finer details will be hidden behind the veil of a special purpose entity and our drone-like Labour councillors will take the comedy mayor’s word at face value when he assures them it’s a good deal for everyone.

Although it’s a minor consideration, there is also the fact that, were the other boroughs involved in the bid, they would have equal claim in stating they had secured the Olympic legacy and would have equal rights in using the venue for their civic events. To a razzle-dazzle, self-promoting showman like the comedy mayor that’s a definite non-starter.

Stephen Timms, the MP for East Ham (the constituency West Ham FC currently resides in) has stated that the club’s move to the Stratford venue makes sound business sense. If he is truly aware of that, he knows more than the great majority of Newham Labour councillors who are being fooled into believing they will have some say as to whether or not the Council part-funds the move. And, if Timms is correct and it does make sound business sense, why are Gold and Sullivan, the club’s owners, not securing all the finance through the club or their various business enterprises? Because, the rates Newham Council can get on a loan are more favourable than they can get, so Newham Council is providing them with cheap money.

All that is interesting enough, but I’m baffled by the fact that next to nothing has been said about what will happen to the vacant Boleyn lot should the club’s bid be successful. I find it beyond the bounds of credibility that the comedy mayor, as tunnel-visioned as he is, would not have some plan in the wings for such a prime development site. Could it be that, as thought-provokingly worrying as the loan for West Ham may be, what’s in store for the Upton Park site is far more controversial?

Newham Ministry of Truth spills over into the private sector.

2011-01-13T22:45:00.007Z

Contrary to popular belief, someone must be reading this blog. On Monday I reported on consultants contracted by the Council and quoted from a blurb on one contractor's web-site which referred to the company's contract with the Council. That blurb has now been removed.

I wonder: if the company no longer acknowledges that it has worked for Newham Council, will it return the £606,567.98 it claimed in costs to the Council?

A Tale Of Two MPs

2011-01-12T22:20:00.006Z

I’m fascinated by the difference in approach of East Ham MP Stephen Timms and his Labour colleague David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, with respect to how they represent the best interests of their respective constituents.

Lammy is vociferously against Tottenham Hotspur’s proposed relocation to the Olympic Stadium; Timms is all for West Ham moving to the venue.

Lammy, rightly, makes the point that, should Spurs relocate, the part of his constituency that is home to the club’s current ground will suffer a localised economic decline. I’ve spoken to the proprietors of several of the Barking Road stores near the Boleyn ground and all predict the same for their businesses should West Ham move to Stratford. The fast-food stores in particular expect a rapid loss of revenue.

Timms, on the other hand, is keen to see West Ham migrate from his constituency to Stratford. In a recent Commons Debate he stated the three reasons why he thinks the West Ham move is the right one: “First, it honours our obligations to the Olympic movement and fulfils the commitment to a strong sporting legacy, which was the basis on which the London bid was successful. Secondly, it offers the best opportunities to the community in east London in which the stadium is located. Thirdly, it is a financially robust bid based on a sound business case.” Interesting – if it is such a financially robust bid based on a sound business case, why does one of the poorest and most economically deprived boroughs in the country have to finance it?

Timms went on to say: “[T]he existing site could be redeveloped in a way that would strengthen the local community and the neighbouring shopping centre in Green street.” Oh please, doesn’t he remember the Queen’s Market development fiasco? And I recall Timms trumpeting the arrival of Starbucks in East Ham High Street (an area that really does need regeneration), claiming that all will be right with the world as the local unemployed can discuss their work prospects over a skinny latte. One year on and Starbucks packed up and went.

People are usually motivated by incentives. Lammy’s is crystal clear: keep on-side with the voters. You’d think Timms’ incentive would be the same, and maybe it is. The rumour mill has it that Newham’s constituency boundaries will drastically change if the Coalition Government goes ahead with plans to “rationalise” parliamentary constituencies. One option is that Newham will be split into North and South. I’ve been told that Timms is vying for the North of the borough. If all this is true, it would make sense for Timms to want the cream of economic activity in his new fiefdom. As for his current constituents… well, there but for the grace of…

Heads up: Extraordinary Council Meeting Thursday 20th @ 7:30 p.m.

2011-01-11T22:16:00.009Z

There appears to be a pattern here. Historically, whenever the comedy mayor is on the cusp of making a decision that will not go down too well with the locals (if they find out) an extraordinary meeting of the Council is called. Drone-like, Labour Councillors turn up to be informed that a serious decision has to be taken, but there is a level of urgency - not much time, indecision will be catastrophic - and a vote is taken. Of course, the comedy mayor has already taken that decision and the council members are there just to ensure that the blood is spread equally on all hands.

An earlier example is the extraordinary meeting of the council held on 2nd July 2007. During that meeting the cream of Newham's politicians were told that it would be economically preferable for the Council to acquire Building 1000, but time was of the essence as the offer was only on the table for the next two days. A ridiculous notion as the building had been empty for years. Much like the extraordinary meeting of the 23rd of November last year when councillors were urged to agree to exploring the possibility of changing employees' terms and conditions of service.

What makes all this so blatantly ridiculous is the fact that the comedy mayor is the sole decision maker on the council; as he states on the Council's web-site: "The buck stops with me - and that is a responsibility that I take seriously". Indeed!

Brought into [a] deteriorating London local authority to find out why financial performance had suddenly drifted.

2011-01-10T21:56:00.007Z

That’s how Kingsgate Square Mile Ltd describe the London Borough of Newham in its web-site blurb about its 2007 consultancy contract with the authority to provide …, well, as the blurb states, Kingsgate “Identified causes and guided senior management team in executing necessary changes, including contracting out, better buying, many process improvements and personnel changes.”. Hurrah!

Newham currently pays for the services of Kingsgate Interim Advisory and Investment Ltd, a different company to Kingsgate Square Mile but owned by the same people. I understand that one Kingsgate consultant is on a £2000.00 a day retainer (plus expenses) and has been instrumental in drafting the current cuts strategy deployed by the Council. It’s rumoured that as time progresses more and more Kingsgate consultants turn up for work at Newham Dockside.

I’ve also been informed that Newham Council have come up with an ingenious ruse to by-pass having to give embarrassing (but truthful) responses to Freedom Of Information requests about consultants. Many are labelled as “Interim Managers” so when a FOI request for info on consultants pops up Interim Managers are excluded from the response. Clever that. There is also a rumour doing the rounds that Bob Heaton, Newham’s head of finance, is leaving the Council to join Kingsgate. What are the odds on his returning to Newham as the Interim Head of Finance on a nice little earner?

I’m going to put my Nostradamus of Newham hat on now. As Kevin Blowe has reported in his excellent blog, Newham Council is dragging its heals over complying with the government’s requirement for local authorities to publish on-line all spends over £500.00. I predict that Newham will by-pass this by employing more consultants in managerial roles. The argument being that Newham cannot publish the “Interim” Managers’ expenses etc. as this would contravene data protection and commercial confidentiality legislation.

However, true to form, there is the glimmer of something comic in all this. As of 2007 the Comedy Mayor had been in office for five years (for now, we’ll let him get away with the years as Leader of the Council). During that time he waffled on about the wonderful decisions he was making and how he was doing such a wonderful job spending your money wisely. Yet, lo and behold, unbeknownst to the good voters of Newham, consultancy cowboys are called in (costing £944,017.98 as of mid-May last year) because Newham is a “deteriorating London local authority” with piss-poor financial performance.

I now have every confidence in the assurances from the comedy mayor that the £111 million cost of Building 1000 was money well spent; after all, he has promised “My very first pledge when I was elected in 2002 was to spend your money wisely, and that remains a priority” ~ Sir Robin Wales, Mayor’s view May 2009.

“Politicians are exposed through their actions rather than their words.” ~ Sir Robin Wales, Mayor’s view June 2010.

Newham Labour MP joins ranks with Tory colleague on deciding how Newham residents' money should be spent.

2010-12-22T21:37:00.006Z

Duncan Mackay reports on his blog that Stephen Timms has the support of Tory MP Mark Field regarding West Ham's bid for the Olympic Stadium. Timms thinks it's a good move, does anyone know if he's explained why?

Timms is also in favour of Newham Council financially supporting the bid. Again, has he explained how this will benefit his constituents?

If Newham Council borrows money, that money should be spent on services and service delivery. After all, the Mayor and his 60 councillors are not borrowing the money in their name, but in the name of the residents of the borough; surely residents should have a say how that money is spent? I doubt very much if many would be keen to see their money spent on securing a loan on generous terms for the re-location of a failing local business. Especially as most of the "patrons" of that business don't live in the borough. What next? A fund to prop up failing off-licenses or down on their luck take-aways?

I'm waiting for one of our elected representatives to explain how it is going to be a good deal for Newham. It's a great deal for Gold and Sullivan, the owners of West Ham. The club is already in financial difficulties, by moving to the Olympic Stadium they can sell the Upton Park ground and re-coup some of the £50 Million or so they spent on the club. I estimate that for them to secure a loan against leasing the Olympic Stadium, they would have to pay interest of 8% or above and would have to offer up some kind of security. Newham Council probably gets favourable rates of around 3.5%. Free money for Gold and Sullivan, or at least a loan with very little risk attached, all the risk being borne by Newham residents.

Sure, Newham borrows an average of £80 million a year, but one would like to think that that borrowing has, in the past, funded services that benefit Newham residents (and Building 1000); using hard working families money to lend to West Ham needs some serious explaining. Let me know when we get it.

On an unrelated subject, what about those nasty bankers and the way they abuse other people's money...

“The best way to keep loyalty in a man's heart is to keep money in his purse.” ~ Irish Proverb

2010-12-18T00:17:00.004Z

I got this sent to me today (anonymously), it’s quite touching:

“From: Internal Comms
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: Loyalty Awards

Dear colleague,

As you know, Newham has a record of marking the achievement of long service with the council. It is absolutely right that people like you who have served our residents for a long period are properly recognised and we will continue to do this.

This year, each of you who have served for 25 years will receive a personal letter from your Director and I, a framed certificate signed by the Mayor and an extra £100 in your pay-packet next week to help with Christmas bills. We hope that this ‘thank you’ shows how much of an impact your service has had on the council over the years and how much we value you.

Everyone knows we are going through tough economic times and the council has been hit particularly hard through loss of grants from central government. It is therefore with extreme reluctance and sadness that we have decided we can no longer have an event for those who have clocked up a quarter of a century and their partners.

In an ideal world I would love to have carried on with this, but we have to look hard at how we spend our money and I have therefore agreed that the event should no longer be held. This does not in any way lessen our recognition of achieving 25 years service to residents and the council - and our recognition scheme remains more than that given by many councils. I ask for your particular understanding with this change in very difficult times.

We will of course continue to recognise colleagues through our quarterly Staff Awards for their ongoing commitment and achievement as part of High Performing Newham; this includes going beyond the call of duty to help customers, residents and their colleagues deliver the best services they can.

Best wishes,

Kim Bromley-Derry
Chief Executive”

Nice to see that such loyal staff will be getting the extra £100.00, but I wonder how much the event would have cost? Maybe if councillor Murphy hadn’t been given an extra £7,000.00 to tide him over after he lost his job as an MP's case worker (she lost her seat in the general election), the Chief Executive might have been able to rustle up a few sandwiches and some blue nun.

I wasn’t convinced by the response I got from the Council when I asked about Murphy’s special portfolio, so I submitted the following as a FOI request:

“Can you please explain why this "portfolio" lists only the generic regular activities for all "Cabinet Members" (is he a cabinet member?) and does not list the role, responsibilities and priorities for the supposed portfolio?

My initial thoughts on receiving this "portfolio" is that it was quickly hashed up as a cut-and-paste from other, so called, portfolios as a genuine portfolio for the "post" didn't exist prior to my original enquiry. When was this "portfolio" developed?”

This is the response:

“This is the portfolio attached to the temporary six month appointment which was announced by the Mayor at the Annual Meeting of Council on 27th May and will terminate on 27th November. It is not a Cabinet position.”

Clear as mud… good to see the leadership of the Council understands the value of rewarding loyalty: £100.00 for 25 years service, £7,200.00 for losing a job that has nothing to do with Newham Council.