![Kay Jordan marched in Hanbury Street, Princelet street on 17 January 2006 [pictured below]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmFpkcZgAW1eZKWId6O-xApvo7_zu4rL0QLz_ByB_FHaKbyUkAFfaPT1RdxXqjX-YVvveRu2zdPyr0pXqiFK-0SAjQd5vyTwGgGDnyU600Gk-gu-MueRhRIg_UhFT66fo8gzCl2tM4BX-8/s760/KHOODEELAAR%2521+No+to+Crossrail+Hole%252C+Demo+in+Hanbury%252C+Spelman%252C+Princelet+Streets+and+Brick+Lane+London+E1+17+January+2006.jpeg)
Dave, you say [we use italics to quote you]:
“There now seems a serious chance that Lutfur Rahman, who was dumped as Labour's candidate and is now running as in [sic] independent, will win. If he does it will be a catastrophe for his rival and former friend Labour's Helal Abbas….”
This is of course speculation on your part.
However, were you to be proven accurate on this hypothesis then your contribution would still lack evidential significance about what has been the real issue. There is no ethical, democratic, constitutional legitimacy in the ‘election’ that they are brazenly going ahead with. We here cite two sources for this response.
Speaking on the London segment of the BBC Politics Show as broadcast yesterday [Sunday 17 October 2010], Malcolm Starbrook, the Editor of the local “East London Advertiser” echoed what we had been saying all along.
According to Mr Starbrook, questions about electoral fraud and rigging would be raised even after Thursday's scheduled ‘do’ [our paraphrase] being staged in the name of the people of Tower Hamlets.
The second source was the “Returning Officer” “Dr” Kevan Collins himself, who was presented [as different from being interviewed far less interrogated] by BBC London Political Editor Tim Donovan. In that presentation, “Dr” Collins admitted that the electoral registration system in England was archaic and as such it contained [our paraphrase] significant loopholes.
Viewed in the context of everything else he claimed as having already been ‘done’ [presumably by HIS regime as the Tower Hamlets Council’s town clerk=‘Chief Executive’] to prevent electoral wrongdoing, we can tell you: there WILL be serious problems and issues over electoral wrongdoing in Tower Hamlets. How do we know this?
“Dr” Kevan Collins provided the answer in his utterance dismissing the very mild [albeit a mis-phrased] observation by Tim Donovan. The fact is that everyone who wants a stake in the £Billion-linked “office of an elected mayor” in the name of the people of Tower Hamlets IS using ‘ethnicity’ and ‘nationality’!
But in the completely opposite way than has been hyped up by the deeply ignorant and the seriously irresponsible revivalists of the rhetoric of Enoch Powell and the taunting of Norman Tebbit and ghoulishness of some of their less mentionable disciples.
What has ALWAYS happened in Tower Hamlets [as it has done in Southall and in Birmingham and in Bradford, to refer to only three identifiable demographic 'constituencies' for comparison] is that ‘ethnicity’ ‘nationality’ and even ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ have been USED to further the agenda of the given politically dominant group.
That has ALWAYS been [up to now] one of the main British Political parties.
The dynamic that then has come into play between that dominant group and the sub-groups within the ethnicity-linked or the ‘nationality’-linked and defined ‘players’ has varied from time to time. So for “Dr” Kevan Collins to have uttered as he did utter to Tim Donovan shows that the Tower Hamlets “Returning Officer” is on very weak ground ON THE FACTS.
And this is why we have been asking him to publish the truthful accounts on all aspects of the wrongdoing that we know has been taking place.
He also failed to tell all he knew about the legal, constitutional and representational ramifications of the particular contents of the dossier claimed to have been signed by Abbas Uddin “Helal” as dated 17 September 2010 and referred to by the Labour Party’s NEC when they decided to impose Abbas Uddin ”Helal’ in place of Lutfur Rahman.
That dossier contains assertions questioning the line about the mayoral referendum that Kevan Collins is continuing to maintain.
We have asked Abbas Uddin “Helal” to provide his explanation of the FACT that the “Labour Party” got INCREASED votes for its candidates for the Council ward seats on 6 May 2010 [as against the votes achieved at the May 2006 council elections] yet the “NO” question at the referendum about the mayor system held on the same date and voted on by the same electorate, got a smaller number of votes.
The reason why we have asked him rather than any other ‘candidate’ is because Abbas Uddin ‘Helal’ had claimed to be in favour of the existing Council constitution and he went on the record to state the list of reasons why an elected mayor would damage the community.
This is what is published on a web site as being the DEFECTS of an elected mayor system.
“NO TO DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS
On May 6th 2010, as well as the usual Council Elections, and possibly a General Election, there will be a referendum asking Tower Hamlets Residents to vote on whether Tower Hamlets Council should have a directly elected Mayor or not.
We are an all-party group of local residents who have come together to campaign against the proposal for a directly elected Mayor because:
1. A directly elected Mayor will marginalise your democratically elected councillors.
2. A directly elected Mayor would damage the representative nature of our council – only one view would matter.
3. Scrutiny of decision-making would be weakened with the public and councillors powerless to hold the directly elected Mayor to account.
4. A directly elected Mayor can appoint non-elected advisors who would not be accountable to local people.
5. There is no provision to remove an incompetent directly elected Mayor.
6.
http://notodirectlyelectedmayorintowerhamlets.org/index.php
We – the BHANGEELAAR! Campaign against an elected mayor in Tower Hamlets - accessed that site at 09:15 GMT today Monday 18 October 2010.
We can confirm that that web site was registered on 09 February 2010. That was the same date when the “East London Advertiser” also published its first full-length “news” report about the 6 February 2010 events in the Hanbury Street.
The integrity of a number of individuals has been brought into question about the truth of their participation on either side of the referendum question.
For these and other reasons already represented by our campaign we say that the ballot is already far too tainted and that Harriet Harman has neglected her primary and paramount duty to behave in transparent accordance with the rules of constitutionality. When the impact of her defiance begins to hit home, no sum of money will be enough to repair the damage to the cause of democracy in the inner city areas that will have been done by this ill-advised and tainted rush to foist an executive mayor upon the Borough of Tower Hamlets and the ordinary people here.
The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party representatives appearing on Channel S on Thursday last week admitted that the elected [=executive] mayor system was the wrong thing.
So why are they candidates to be the mayor?
This is not a question about their freedom to seek a public office. This is a question about their reliability, their integrity and their ability to understand what words they say and what trust they can then deserve to be given.
If it is the wrong office or system even before it has been actually created, how can it be the right office only because it carries a big sum in salary and an even bigger sum of public money to play with?
---
London week ahead: Labour's big test in Tower Hamlets
My week will be dominated by Thursday's mayoral election in Tower Hamlets. This contest is a big deal. Winning control of the "Olympic borough" and its billion pound-plus budget is far more important than prevailing in most parliamentary by-elections and hugely important for Labour. It is the party's first major electoral test since Ed Miliband became its leader.
Labour reasserted its dominance in this part of the East End in May, all but obliterating Respect which had so effectively tuned in to discontent and division over Iraq. Yet a combination of a farcical candidate selection process and reaction against belligerent media attacks have revived anti-Labour resentments among the highly-politicised Bangladeshi community that makes up about a third of the borough's population.
There now seems a serious chance that Lutfur Rahman, who was dumped as Labour's candidate and is now running as in independent, will win. If he does it will be a catastrophe for his rival and former friend Labour's Helal Abbas, who I will soon be talking to about his policies and prospects. I hope to publish the interview tomorrow.
Meanwhile, there will be plenty going on at City Hall. On Tuesday the economic development committee will explore plans to devolve further powers to the Mayor. That afternoon the planning and housing committee will look into the post-Games development of the Olympic Park. On Wednesday, Boris's housing adviser Richard Blakeway and the Homes and Communities Agency's David Lunt will be quizzed by the whole assembly on housing issues, which remain a matter of keen interest to this blog. The action in Tower Hamlets means I'm unlikely to attend these meetings, but you can watch them for yourselves either in person or on the webcasts. I'll probably play catch up next week. Sigh.
Neil King - Conservative candidate for Tower Hamlets Mayoral election
Was he a good PM? Yes or No? Share your opinion now!
Up to 80% Off Top Designer Brands! Members Only, Get a Free Invite Now
Comments in chronological order (Total 5 comments)
Post a comment18 October 2010 7:42AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
18 October 2010 10:38AM
Dave, you say [we use italics to quote you]:
“There now seems a serious chance that Lutfur Rahman, who was dumped as Labour's candidate and is now running as in [sic] independent, will win. If he does it will be a catastrophe for his rival and former friend Labour's Helal Abbas….”
This is of course speculation on your part. However, were you to be proven accurate on this hypothesis then your contribution would still lack evidential significance about what has been the real issue. There is no ethical, democratic, constitutional legitimacy in the ‘election’ that they are brazenly going ahead with. We here cite two sources for this response. Speaking on the London segment of the BBC Politics Show as broadcast yesterday [Sunday 17 October 2010], Malcolm Starbrook, the Editor of the local “East London Advertiser” echoed what we had been saying all along. According to Mr Starbrook, questions about electoral fraud and rigging would be raised even after Thursday's scheduled ‘do’ [our paraphrase] being staged in the name of the people of Tower Hamlets. The second source was the “Returning Officer” “Dr” Kevan Collins himself, who was presented [as different from being interviewed far less interrogated] by BBC London Political Editor Tim Donovan. In that presentation, “Dr” Collins admitted that the electoral registration system in England was archaic and as such it contained [our paraphrase] significant loopholes. Viewed in the context of everything else he claimed as having already been ‘done’ [presumably by HIS regime as the Tower Hamlets Council’s town clerk=‘Chief Executive’] to prevent electoral wrongdoing, we can tell you: there WILL be serious problems and issues over electoral wrongdoing in Tower Hamlets. How do we know this? “Dr” Kevan Collins provided the answer in his utterance dismissing the very mild [albeit a mis-phrased] observation by Tim Donovan. The fact is that everyone who wants a stake in the £Billion-linked “office of an elected mayor” in the name of the people of Tower Hamlets IS using ‘ethnicity’ and ‘nationality’! But in the completely opposite way than has been hyped up by the deeply ignorant and the seriously irresponsible revivalists of the rhetoric of Enoch Powell and the taunting of Norman Tebbit and ghoulishness of some of their less mentionable disciples. What has ALWAYS happened in Tower Hamlets [as it has done in Southall and in Birmingham and in Bradford, to refer to only three identifiable demographic 'constituencies' for comparison] is that ‘ethnicity’ ‘nationality’ and even ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ have been USED to further the agenda of the given politically dominant group. That has ALWAYS been [up to now] one of the main British Political parties. The dynamic that then has come into play between that dominant group and the sub-groups within the ethnicity-linked or the ‘nationality’-linked and defined ‘players’ has varied from time to time. So for “Dr” Kevan Collins to have uttered as he did utter to Tim Donovan shows that the Tower Hamlets “Returning Officer” is on very weak ground ON THE FACTS. And this is why we have been asking him to publish the truthful accounts on all aspects of the wrongdoing that we know has been taking place.
He also failed to tell all he knew about the legal, constitutional and representational ramifications of the particular contents of the dossier claimed to have been signed by Abbas Uddin “Helal” as dated 17 September 2010 and referred to by the Labour Party’s NEC when they decided to impose Abbas Uddin ”Helal’ in place of Lutfur Rahman. That dossier contains assertions questioning the line about the mayoral referendum that Kevan Collins is continuing to maintain. We have asked Abbas Uddin “Helal” to provide his explanation of the FACT that the “Labour Party” got INCREASED votes for its candidates for the Council ward seats on 6 May 2010 [as against the votes achieved at the May 2006 council elections] yet the “NO” question at the referendum about the mayor system held on the same date and voted on by the same electorate, got a smaller number of votes. The reason why we have asked him rather than any other ‘candidate’ is because Abbas Uddin ‘Helal’ had claimed to be in favour of the existing Council constitution and he went on the record to state the list of reasons why an elected mayor would damage the community.
This is what is published on a web site as being the DEFECTS of an elected mayor system.
“NO TO DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS
Home
On May 6th 2010, as well as the usual Council Elections, and possibly a General Election, there will be a referendum asking Tower Hamlets Residents to vote on whether Tower Hamlets Council should have a directly elected Mayor or not.
We are an all-party group of local residents who have come together to campaign against the proposal for a directly elected Mayor because:
1. A directly elected Mayor will marginalise your democratically e
18 October 2010 10:47AM
Dave, you say [we use italics to quote you]:
“There now seems a serious chance that Lutfur Rahman, who was dumped as Labour's candidate and is now running as in [sic] independent, will win. If he does it will be a catastrophe for his rival and former friend Labour's Helal Abbas….”
This is of course speculation on your part. However, were you to be proven accurate on this hypothesis then your contribution would still lack evidential significance about what has been the real issue. There is no ethical, democratic, constitutional legitimacy in the ‘election’ that they are brazenly going ahead with. We here cite two sources for this response. Speaking on the London segment of the BBC Politics Show as broadcast yesterday [Sunday 17 October 2010], Malcolm Starbrook, the Editor of the local “East London Advertiser” echoed what we had been saying all along. According to Mr Starbrook, questions about electoral fraud and rigging would be raised even after Thursday's scheduled ‘do’ [our paraphrase] being staged in the name of the people of Tower Hamlets. The second source was the “Returning Officer” “Dr” Kevan Collins himself, who was presented [as different from being interviewed far less interrogated] by BBC London Political Editor Tim Donovan. In that presentation, “Dr” Collins admitted that the electoral registration system in England was archaic and as such it contained [our paraphrase] significant loopholes. Viewed in the context of everything else he claimed as having already been ‘done’ [presumably by HIS regime as the Tower Hamlets Council’s town clerk=‘Chief Executive’] to prevent electoral wrongdoing, we can tell you: there WILL be serious problems and issues over electoral wrongdoing in Tower Hamlets. How do we know this? “Dr” Kevan Collins provided the answer in his utterance dismissing the very mild [albeit a mis-phrased] observation by Tim Donovan. The fact is that everyone who wants a stake in the £Billion-linked “office of an elected mayor” in the name of the people of Tower Hamlets IS using ‘ethnicity’ and ‘nationality’! But in the completely opposite way than has been hyped up by the deeply ignorant and the seriously irresponsible revivalists of the rhetoric of Enoch Powell and the taunting of Norman Tebbit and ghoulishness of some of their less mentionable disciples. What has ALWAYS happened in Tower Hamlets [as it has done in Southall and in Birmingham and in Bradford, to refer to only three identifiable demographic 'constituencies' for comparison] is that ‘ethnicity’ ‘nationality’ and even ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ have been USED to further the agenda of the given politically dominant group. That has ALWAYS been [up to now] one of the main British Political parties. The dynamic that then has come into play between that dominant group and the sub-groups within the ethnicity-linked or the ‘nationality’-linked and defined ‘players’ has varied from time to time. So for “Dr” Kevan Collins to have uttered as he did utter to Tim Donovan shows that the Tower Hamlets “Returning Officer” is on very weak ground ON THE FACTS. And this is why we have been asking him to publish the truthful accounts on all aspects of the wrongdoing that we know has been taking place.
He also failed to tell all he knew about the legal, constitutional and representational ramifications of the particular contents of the dossier claimed to have been signed by Abbas Uddin “Helal” as dated 17 September 2010 and referred to by the Labour Party’s NEC when they decided to impose Abbas Uddin ”Helal’ in place of Lutfur Rahman. That dossier contains assertions questioning the line about the mayoral referendum that Kevan Collins is continuing to maintain. We have asked Abbas Uddin “Helal” to provide his explanation of the FACT that the “Labour Party” got INCREASED votes for its candidates for the Council ward seats on 6 May 2010 [as against the votes achieved at the May 2006 council elections] yet the “NO” question at the referendum about the mayor system held on the same date and voted on by the same electorate, got a smaller number of votes. The reason why we have asked him rather than any other ‘candidate’ is because Abbas Uddin ‘Helal’ had claimed to be in favour of the existing Council constitution and he went on the record to state the list of reasons why an elected mayor would damage the community.
This is what is published on a web site as being the DEFECTS of an elected mayor system.
“NO TO DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS
On May 6th 2010, as well as the usual Council Elections, and possibly a General Election, there will be a referendum asking Tower Hamlets Residents to vote on whether Tower Hamlets Council should have a directly elected Mayor or not.
We are an all-party group of local residents who have come together to campaign against the proposal for a directly elected Mayor because:
1. A directly elected Mayor will marginalise your democratically elected councillors.
2. A directly elected Ma
18 October 2010 10:47AM
[Continuing]
“NO TO DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYOR IN TOWER HAMLETS
On May 6th 2010, as well as the usual Council Elections, and possibly a General Election, there will be a referendum asking Tower Hamlets Residents to vote on whether Tower Hamlets Council should have a directly elected Mayor or not.
We are an all-party group of local residents who have come together to campaign against the proposal for a directly elected Mayor because:
1. A directly elected Mayor will marginalise your democratically elected councillors.
2. A directly elected Mayor would damage the representative nature of our council – only one view would matter.
3. Scrutiny of decision-making would be weakened with the public and councillors powerless to hold the directly elected Mayor to account.
4. A directly elected Mayor can appoint non-elected advisors who would not be accountable to local people.
5. There is no provision to remove an incompetent directly elected Mayor.
http://notodirectlyelectedmayorintowerhamlets.org/index.php
We – the BHANGEELAAR! Campaign against an elected mayor in Tower Hamlets - accessed that site at 10:15 GMT today Monday 18 October 2010.
We can confirm that that web site was registered on 09 February 2010. That was the same date when the “East London Advertiser” also published its first full-length “news” report about the 6 February 2010 events in the Hanbury Street. The integrity of a number of individuals has been brought into question about the truth of their particioation on either side of the referendum question. For these and other reasons already represented by our campaign we say that the ballot is already far too tainted and that Harriet Harman has neglected her primary and paramount duty to behave in transparent accordance with the rules of constitutionality. When the impact of her defiance begins to hit home, no sum of money will be enough to repair the damage to the cause of democracy in the inner city areas that will have been done by this ill-advised and tainted rush to foist an executive mayor upon the Borough of Tower Hamlets and the ordinary people here.
The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party representatives appearing on Channel S on Thursday last week admitted that the elected [=executive] mayor system was the wrong thing.
So why are they candidates to be the mayor? This is not a question about their freedom to seek a public office. This is a question about their reliability, their integrity and their ability to understand what words they say and what trust they can then deserve to be given. If it is the wrong office or system even before it has been actually created, how can it be the right office only because it carries a big sum in salary and an even bigger sum of public money to play with? This is why we say SCRAP the tainted executive mayor ballot.
18 October 2010 10:59AM
The time that when we visited the web site was 10:15 UK 09:15 GMT