Martin Warne's posterous http://www.forestgate.net Like, whatever, you know . . . posterous.com Wed, 16 May 2012 10:10:00 -0700 London Mayor & London Assembly Election 2012 - Newham Results http://www.forestgate.net/london-mayor-london-assembly-election-2012-ne http://www.forestgate.net/london-mayor-london-assembly-election-2012-ne

The ward-by-ward and borough-level results from the recent Mayoral and London Assembly elections have been released.

In the mayoral election, Newham voted (unsurprisingly) overwhelmingly for Labour's Ken Livingstone. On first preference votes, the results were:

Siobhan Benita (independent) - 1,536 (2.33%)

Carlos Cortiglia (BNP) - 918 (1.39%)

Boris Johnson (Conservative) - 12,139 (18.42%)

Jenny Jones (Green) - 1,630 (2.47%)

Ken Livingstone (Labour) - 47,388 (71.89%)

Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrat) - 1,413 (2.14%)

Lawrence James Webb (UKIP) - 893 (1.35%)

 

In the London Assembly election for the City & East constituency, the results were:

John Biggs (Labour) - 47,226 (71.18%)

Paul Borg (BNP) - 1,773 (2.67%)

Paul Davies (Communist League) - 447 (0.67%)

Richard Macmillan (Liberal Democrat) - 2,064 (3.11%)

Kamran Malik (Communities United Party) - 3,677 (5.54%)

John Moss (Conservative) - 6,578 (9.91%)

Chris Smith (Green) - 3,078 (4.64%)

Steven Woolfe (UKIP) - 1,505 (2.27%)

 

For the election of the London-wide members:

BNP - 1,428 (2.15%)

Christian Peoples Alliance - 1,701 (2.56%)

Conservative Party - 6,753 (10.14%)

Green Party - 2,988 (4.49%)

Labour Party - 48,241 (72.47%)

Liberal Democrats - 1,620 (2.43%)

National Front - 247 (0.37%)

House Party - 245 (0.37%)

Trade Unionist & Socialist Coalition - 400 (0.60%)

UKIP - 1,569 (2.36%)

Rathy Alagaratnam - 227 (0.34%)

Ijaz Hayat - 688 (1.03%)

 

So, what do we learn from all this?

Across London Ken Livingstone polled behind the Labour Party, which is why he lost the mayoral election when his party made big gains in the Assembly. But that didn't happen in Newham. His vote and the general Labour vote were all but identical. 

That wasn't true for the the Tories though. Boris was close to twice as popular in Newham as his party. The Conservatives continue to be - in vote terms, at least - the main opposition party in the borough, although their share of the vote was somewhat lower than at the general election (around 10% this time compared to 15% in 2010).

It's also worth noting that Labour's share of the vote was up from the 2010 general election, where Lyn Brown (West Ham) took 62.7% and Stephen Timms (East Ham) took 70.4%.

The Liberal Democrats did hopelessly badly. It's hard to see even a spark of life for a party that finished with fewer votes than the Christians and barely beat UKIP.

These results, along with those from the general and council elections in 2010, confirm that the far-right has no meaningful presence or support in Newham. We should be grateful for that.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 15 May 2012 03:30:00 -0700 How many Trots does it take to change a lightbulb? http://www.forestgate.net/how-many-trots-does-it-take-to-change-a-light http://www.forestgate.net/how-many-trots-does-it-take-to-change-a-light

How many Trots does it take to change a lightbulb?

  • 15 on the central committee to issue an edict denouncing broken lightbulbs and calling for change...
  • 10 to hand out "hands off *insert country*" placards to passers by…
  • …and 50 to try to sell them papers...
  • 25 to collect signatures for a petition demanding the government do something about changing the lightbulb...
  • 30 to set up a front group called "Right to Light"…
  • 30 Student's to set up a front group called "Youth Fight For Light"...
  • …and 15 to form a break-away group demanding a return to candle light.

So about 175 at conservative estimates.

 

But the lightbulb remains unchanged.

 

via @majsaleh and @RooftopJaxx on Twitter.

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:23:00 -0700 Cannes Update http://www.forestgate.net/cannes-update http://www.forestgate.net/cannes-update

The Newham Recorder has published the list of sponsors for the Mayor's trip to Cannes.

These were:

  • Bougyes Development
  • Strand East
  • Westfield Stratford City 
  • Countryside Properties 
  • Swan New Homes
  • the Ballymore Group 
  • Capita Symonds
  • the Cathedral Group 
  • the University of East London
  • Ardmore Construction
  • Urban Initiatives, and 
  • Savills

According to the Recorder, all "have denied any suggestion that their involvement in the trip would mean they received favourable treatment when it came to future development opportunities."

They're all just very generous, public-spirited people… obviously.

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:21:00 -0700 Cannes of Worms http://www.forestgate.net/cannes-of-worms http://www.forestgate.net/cannes-of-worms

Back in March, Ted Jeory, writing in the Sunday Express, reported that various local councils in the UK had been represented at an international property convention in Cannes, a resort town on the French riviera, including Sir Robin Wales at the head of a 6-man delegation from Newham council.

The story was repeated by Mike Law on his blog, highlighting the presence of Sir Robin and the revelation that the trip had not been funded by local taxpayers but by private interests.

The Newham Recorder picked this up and asked who had paid for the trip. Predictably, the council declined to say. The Recorder's reporter claims this has been followed up by a request under the Freedom of Information Act, though as far as I know no response has yet been forthcoming.

In a comment posted on Mike Law's blog I said that if there was a genuine and compelling reason for Newham to be present at this conference I'd have no objection to the trip being funded from public money. I'm entirely prepared to believe the trip was a worthwhile way for Sir Robin and his entourage to spend their time.

In fact, if the mayor's presence was so vital it absolutely should have been paid for by the taxpayer. Drumming up business for Newham is part of his job. And there's plenty of building to be done around the Olympic Park, plus a large number of brownfield sites across the borough that could be usefully redeveloped. If going to a global property conference is the best way to meet developers, then that's the place to be. The fact that the event took place in the south of France is neither here nor there. Sir Robin didn't choose the venue.

Public officials travelling on public business should have their expenses met from the public purse. That way everything's above board and there's no question about whose interests they're representing. 

But this trip wasn't funded with public money. And that is extremely worrying. No-one provides hospitality on this scale without some expectation of getting something in return. The fact that Newham is refusing - so far at least - to disclose who picked up the tab indicates that they feel there's something to hide. 

Perhaps Sir Robin is pleased with himself for saving the public purse a few pounds, but it may end up being a poor bargain for Newham.

Until we know who paid for his trip the mayor must recuse himself from all discussions about regeneration and redevelopment in Newham and from consideration of all planning applications. Otherwise how can we tell if he's doing the right thing by residents or repaying a debt to his generous sponsors?

It is a mystery to me why Sir Robin has chosen put himself in this position. It is a massive lapse of judgement.

UPDATE:

The mayor's register of gifts and hospitality has been updated to include the trip to Cannes:

 

  • 07/03/2012 - Hospitality: Olympic Park Legacy Dinner. offered by Olympic Park Legacy Company, 29-35 West Ham Lane, London E15 4PH; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: at least £25.00 ; Value £25
  • 06/03/2012 - Hospitality: Olympic Park Legacy Lunch offered by Olympic Park Legacy Co., 29-35 West Ham Lane, London E15 4PH; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: at leat £25.00 ; Value £25
  • 06/03/2012 - Hospitality: City of London - The London Reception evening event. offered by City of London, Guildhall, PO Box 270 London EC2P 2EJ; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: at least £25.00 ; Value £25
  • 06/03/2012 - Hospitality: London First Cocktail Evening Reception. offered by London First, Whitcomb Street, London WC2H 7HA; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: £25.00 ; Value £25
  • 05/03/2012 - Travel from London to Cannes France: MIPIM 2012 Internatiional Conference offered by Various sponsors.; Travel via Eurostar - St. Pancras to Cannes, via Paris. Value: £362.28p ; Value £25
  • 05/03/2012 - Accommodation at the Croisette Beach Hotel, Cannes; MIPIM 2012 International Conference offered by Various sponsors.; x3 night accommodation 5-7 March 2012. Value: £687.00
  • 05/03/2012 - Hospitality - London First evening reception offered by London First, 3 Whitcomb Street, London WC2H 7HA; Hospitality received at MIPIM 2012 International Conference, Cannes. Value: at least £25.00 ; Value £25

 

Although the people paying for the various meals and receptions are named, the big ticket items - the cost of travel and hotel accommodation - are listed as "offered by various sponsors." And there's no mention here of a conference registration fee. The MIPIM 2012 website states visitor registration as being €1,590 (excluding VAT). That's £1,312 at today's exchange rate, plus French VAT at 19.6%.

Taken together these come to over £2,361 (excluding the VAT on the registration fee). Assuming all the other members of Newham's delegation travelled together, stayed in the same hotel and attended the conference these "various sponsors" have stumped up well in excess of £14,000.

I repeat the question: who are these people and what do they expect in return for their largesse?

 

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:30:00 -0700 Big Brother http://www.forestgate.net/big-brother http://www.forestgate.net/big-brother

Wales_watching
As reported in today's Newham Recorder, there's more CCTV cameras in Newham than Waltham Forest and Barking & Dagenham boroughs combined.

We have an average of 16 cameras for every square mile of the borough.

And, not content with this, Sir Robin wants to take over the fleet of mobile enforcement cameras being deployed for the Olympics.

Residents of Newham are the most spied on citizens in our supposedly-free country.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:48:00 -0700 Which kills more, lack of health care or terrorism? http://www.forestgate.net/which-kills-more-lack-of-health-care-or-terro http://www.forestgate.net/which-kills-more-lack-of-health-care-or-terro

Via Fast Company

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:23:00 -0700 5 Questions for Newham Councillors http://www.forestgate.net/5-questions-for-newham-councillors http://www.forestgate.net/5-questions-for-newham-councillors

On Wednesday 28 March Newham's 60 Labour councillors and the mayor will meet to consider the latest developments in  the proposed joint venture with the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC). If this goes ahead Newham - one of the country's poorest boroughs - will invest £40 million and take an ownership interest in the Olympic Stadium.

At the meeting councillors will vote to exclude the public and the press. Key sections of the papers for the meeting have been restricted, so the public - whose money is going to be spent - will have no idea what is going on or why.

So ahead of the meeting here are 5 questions that councillors should answer before they vote on this:

  • What additional benefits will Newham people derive from the proposed £40 million investment that they will not get if the stadium legacy is wholly funded by OPLC?
  • If these benefits of ownership are so substantial - and so obvious - why aren't the other Olympic boroughs taking a similar stake? For that matter, why isn't the Greater London Authority?
  • Having read the business case for the investment (you have read the business case, haven't you?) are you confident that it is built on solid financial and commercial foundations, that the investment is therefore low risk and Newham people are not going to be stuck with a bill for a white elephant?
  • Why are the public and the press excluded from all discussion about the new £40 million offer to the OPLC? This is an investment by one public body in another - there is no legitimate claim to be made for 'commercial sensitivity'.
  • According to the draft statement of accounts for 2010/11, the council's "total external borrowing at 31st March 2011 was £1,186 million. Given the current financial situation, is this really the time to be taking on another £40 million in debt?

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:20:00 -0800 This. Just this. http://www.forestgate.net/this-just-this http://www.forestgate.net/this-just-this

From Merlin Mann at Inbox Zero

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:53:00 -0800 Newham's Debt Timebomb http://www.forestgate.net/newhams-debt-timebomb http://www.forestgate.net/newhams-debt-timebomb
Last year I wrote about the enormous debt racked up by Newham council in the ten years since Sir Robin Wales was elected as executive mayor.

As the result of recent correspondance with a local Labour party member, I thought I'd revisit the issue and explain a little more why it makes me feel so uneasy.

Of course public debt isn't like personal debt, much as the Tories may try to persuade us otherwise. But equally local government debt isn't like national government debt either. National debt for a country like the UK, which has a sovereign currency, is always ultimately repayable through creating new money (this is what the recent rounds of quantitative easing basically involved - creating new money to buy back old debt). Obviously it's a last resort and can go disastrously wrong, as Mugabe demonstrated in Zimbabwe, but it means the UK can never go bankrupt and will never default on its debt.

But the same does not apply to Newham. We can't print new money to pay off the debt, so the only options are taking on new loans to pay off the old ones or ensuring revenues exceed expenses and using the difference to pay down the loans. This latter option means raising taxes, cutting costs or a combination of the two. The former option will only work for so long, as eventually your line of credit runs out or the interest payments on the debt swell to an unsustainable point.

And it's really the question of the interest that bothers me at this point. Sir Robin has been extremely fortunate to have been able to borrow and spend at a time of record low interest rates. If you look at the council's accounts you will see that the cost of servicing the debt today, in cash terms, is the same as it was ten years ago despite the fact that there's almost twice as much of it. But only a fool would believe that today's historically low interest rates will last forever - or even for as long as the life of Newham's loans.

So when interest rates start to go back up, the cost of servicing the debt goes up.

Where are those extra interest payments going to come from? Either more borrowing - which would be extremely foolish - or from revenues. Either council taxes have to go up sharply, or services have to be cut yet further. In Newham neither looks an attractive option: make some of London's poorest people pay a lot more tax, or cut the services they rely on.

What Sir Robin has created is a debt timebomb. If he's lucky, or astute, he'll have moved on to bigger things (Lord Wales?) before it goes off. But the people who live and work in the borough will be stuck with the consequences.

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:48:38 -0800 View to the Med http://www.forestgate.net/view-to-the-med http://www.forestgate.net/view-to-the-med
on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/HjSTlGkB1Z/ - February 28, 2012 at 01:40PM

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:48:37 -0800 Greenwich Peninsula http://www.forestgate.net/greenwich-peninsula http://www.forestgate.net/greenwich-peninsula
on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/HjRx3ukB1V/ - February 28, 2012 at 01:35PM

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:48:00 -0800 Cow! http://www.forestgate.net/cow http://www.forestgate.net/cow


on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/HjRneMEB1U/ - February 28, 2012 at 01:34PM

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:33:00 -0800 Snow! http://www.forestgate.net/snow http://www.forestgate.net/snow


on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/HjRW5-kB1P/ - February 28, 2012 at 01:31PM

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:03:18 -0800 Trees in Bletchley http://www.forestgate.net/trees-in-bletchley http://www.forestgate.net/trees-in-bletchley
on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/Hi4XdVkBzj/ - February 28, 2012 at 09:53AM

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:48:20 -0800 Misty morning in Milton Keynes http://www.forestgate.net/misty-morning-in-milton-keynes http://www.forestgate.net/misty-morning-in-milton-keynes
on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/HijBc2EByH/ - February 28, 2012 at 06:46AM

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:28:00 -0800 A Parish Council for Forest Gate? http://www.forestgate.net/a-parish-council-for-forest-gate http://www.forestgate.net/a-parish-council-for-forest-gate

 

In 2007, the Government passed legislation which permitted the creation of community councils in London, with the aim of enhancing community governance in urban areas. These new community councils would have similar powers to the parish councils that exist elsewhere across the country.

Central government - both this one and its Labour predecessor - wants to encourage localism, a greater devolution of power and decision making to the lowest possible level. A Government white paper last year set out support for new parish councils and made it clear they wanted to see more councils established to take greater control over local services

Already local residents in Queen's Park and London Fields have started campaigns to set up their own councils to change their community for the better.

Would it make sense for us to have our own council in Forest Gate?

It wouldn't mean leaving Newham, just having some powers transferred into the hands of local people and an ability to spend money on the projects we consider priorities. For example, the new council would have to be consulted on any planning applications, such as the one submitted by Obsidian for the re-development of our town centre. The lack of effective planning enforcement is something that has long blighted Forest Gate Town Centre. Other possible powers which could have a positive impact on how we as residents could improve Forest Gate include managing community and leisure centres, establishing a 'village hall', street cleansing and community safety. It may even be possible to take over the local parking provision to ensure that it better reflects the needs and desires of the local population. 

The new council would be funded by a precept - an additional amount of money collected alongside the council tax. It might also receive a grant from Newham to enable it fund services it took over from them.

In order to establish a new parish council here Newham, as the 'Principal Local Authority', would have to first undertake a 'community governance review'. They could decide to do this themselves, or we can petition them to do so. If 10% of the electors in the affected area signed the petition Newham would be legally obliged to carry out a review within 12 months. 

Together the existing wards of Forest Gate North and Forest Gate South are home to about 20,000 people, but the area covered by the council need not exactly match those boundaries. However, that makes a sensible starting point for thinking about this.

I think there are exciting possibilities here for local people to re-engage in the governance of our community, but what do you think? Is this an idea worth pursuing? Why not head over to Woodgrange Web and join the debate - http://bit.ly/yKo35I

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:57:00 -0800 How to parent like the French http://www.forestgate.net/how-to-parent-like-the-french http://www.forestgate.net/how-to-parent-like-the-french

Seriously, is there anything they're not better than us at?

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:48:00 -0800 Wanstead Flats in the snow http://www.forestgate.net/wanstead-flats-in-the-snow-50926 http://www.forestgate.net/wanstead-flats-in-the-snow-50926


on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/oRjUA/ - February 05, 2012 at 11:37AM

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:51:00 -0800 Word Up - Office for iPad? http://www.forestgate.net/word-up-office-for-ipad http://www.forestgate.net/word-up-office-for-ipad

This is something I wrote for my company's blog, which was published yesterday:

In the past weeks, Microsoft has released a slew of iOS apps, including SkyDrive (with 25 gB of free online storage), OneNote for iPad, Halo Waypoint, and My Xbox LIVE, Lync 2010 for iPhone and Lync 2010 for iPad, in addition to previous releases like Bing, Photosynth, and OneNote for iPhone.

And there are strong rumours that Office for iPad is in the works. With Windows 8 tablets like to appear at some point in 2012 and Windows Phone 7 already in the market, the big question is why would Microsoft bolster its rival's business by offering products which may keep them away from its own devices? At first glance, it looks like madness.

But Microsoft is a software company first and foremost (notwithstanding their excellent range of PC mice & keyboards, and the XBox business). 90% of their revenues comes from software, so it makes sense to put its software on as many platforms as possible. Right?

Well, kind of. Most of those apps are free (OneNote allows 500 free notes, then it costs £2.99), so there's no revenue attached. But there's huge value in user data. By putting apps on to the only tablet with any significant market scale and tying them back to online services they get to see exactly how users behave. It's like a giant user testing laboratory and Microsoft engineers will use that information to figure out the best implementation of their apps on their own tablet version. Putting XBox LIVE on iOS extends the platform onto the world's most popular handheld gaming device.

But those arguments don't hold true for Office. The two cornerstones of Microsoft's business are the revenues it earns from its Office and Windows franchises. Nothing, but nothing, is allowed to compromise that. Ever.

Although there is a huge and flourishing market for premium (i.e paid-for) apps on iOS, price expectations are set pretty low. Even for iPad there are few apps priced over £9.99. Apple's own iWorks app (Pages, Keynote and Numbers) cost £6.99 each. Even with their larger feature sets it's hard to see how Microsoft could charge anywhere close to the current lowest price for Office on Windows or Mac (the Home & Student edition is £72.99 on Amazon; the business edition is £100 more expensive but includes Outlook). 

So Microsoft has to make a judgement call - will Office for iPad sales be additive to desktop sales, or cannibalise them? And would a lower price on iPad exert significant downward pressure on Office prices for PC, even if the tablet versions are functionally limited? 

My best guess is that there may well be more iOS apps from Microsoft through 2012, but we won't be seeing Office for iPad anytime soon. The risk to core revenues is simply too great. Those looking to move their entire working lives to iPad will have to wait a little longer, or explore the non-Microsoft options.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:32:00 -0800 A Conversation with Councillor Gray http://www.forestgate.net/a-conversation-with-councillor-gray http://www.forestgate.net/a-conversation-with-councillor-gray

In a comment on John Gray's Labour Blog (which is actually it's title, not a description I've given it) I asked, in relation to what I perceive to be a lack of transparency in the way Newham council conducts its business:

Why is vital business always conducted behind closed doors at Labour Group meetings rather than in public council meetings?

Why were the public and the press excluded from the [council's] discussion about the new £40 million offer to the OPLC?

Councillor Gray replied:

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.

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.

Unsatisfied by this response, I pressed the matter further:

You say "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."

Apologies if I'm being a bit thick, but I'm afraid you're going to have to enlighten me. Whilst I agree that there will be overall benefits to London and the UK from hosting the Olympics (even at the vastly expanded cost of £9 billion) and I am personally looking forward to attending a number of events in the summer, I cannot see why Newham council would want to have a direct stake in the future ownership of the main stadium once the Games are over. If the benefits are so obvious, why aren't Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Redbridge taking a similar stake? Why isn't the Greater London Authority?

Of course the Olympic stadium should remain in public ownership, but the OPLC is a public body, so Newham's investment won't make the ownership any more public than it already is.

The question therefore remains, what additional benefits will Newham people derive from the proposed £40 million investment that they will not get if the stadium legacy is wholly funded by OPLC?

The answers to that may lie in the report that you and your colleagues considered back in December when you approved the £40 million investment offer, but that document has not been published and your meeting was held behind closed doors. Quite why an arrangement between two public entities should be regarded as 'commercially sensitive' is beyond me.

Councillor Gray again responded:

Again, purely in my personal opinion, I don’t know why (and maybe they are putting in a bid for all I know) but suspect that the simple answer is that the stadium is in Newham. I also think that the GLA have no legal ability to do what you suggest. Nor at this time the political inclination.

The OPLC is a “public body” at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that it will be always.

Look, I believe in public ownership, I am a believer in “Municipalism” and that the role of a Council is not just to be an “enabler” of services. 

The potential of the Stadium is enormous and IMO (sorry BBM) it is quite right and proper that the Council wants to play a prudent role in its future.

Whether you think it is a good thing or not all, public entities have a duty to negotiate to get the best commercial arrangement possible, whether it is a with a private or public body – so of course, you cannot make your negotiation position public.

Feeling that my basic question had gone unanswered, I tried again

You talk about potential and municipalism, but make no mention of concrete benefits to Newham people resulting from the £40 million we are putting in.

The business case for the investment that the council approved would have included some kind of benefits analysis as part of the return on investment calculation, so there must be a list of them written down somewhere. Why not just share that?

If this investment is such a great deal for the people of Newham, why aren't the mayor and the council trumpeting it from the rooftops?

This prompted the following, frankly unenlightening reply

I honestly think that I have as much as is possible at this moment.

The key thing to remember at this time is that there is no "deal" to actually talk about. There is a proposal which is being negotiated. The proposal (as in any other negotiation) could be turned down, amended or withdrawn. In the midst of negotiations you just don’t generally trumpet things from the rooftops

And there I think we must leave it.

The post to which the comments were attached has sunk down below the first page of Councillor Gray's blog and I sense that we're really only talking to each other. To his credit John Gray has remained entirely polite in his replies to me, which is not a courtesy he always extends to commentors on his blog or others he perceives as political opponents. And at least he has a blog, which is more than can be said for the mayor or any of his other colleagues (as far as I am aware). 

Maybe at some point we'll find out what we'll be getting for our money, but I'm not holding my breath. Sir Robin is hell bent on taking some kind of control of the Olympic stadium, and spending a big chunk of our cash to do it. The idea that he might explain himself to the people who will actually paying for it is not one that will detain him, even for a nanosecond.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/891288/your_image_1.jpg http://posterous.com/users/1kQGI7HBkTlv Martin Warne mwarne Martin Warne