Examining the paralysis in Tower Hamlets “Labour Party” and the morass that is the “elected” Tower Hamlets Council [60]

2108 [1735] Hrs GMT London Sunday 15 May 2011.

AADHIKARonline © Muhammad Haque London “Democratic deficit and poverty of principles in the behaviour of the elected careerists in the UK..” Commentary.

Examining the paralysis in Tower Hamlets “Labour Party” and the morass that is the “elected” Tower Hamlets Council [60]


HASTENING to ADD that the role of Jim Fitzpatrick in destroying all values of universal democracy, ethical; representation and accountability in the East End of London remains as persistent this weekend as it was in February 2010.


If an objective thinking, non-careerist person took a random look at the utterances of Jim Fitzpatrick, [still the claimant to one of the two ‘parliamentary seats’ in the name of the electors in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets] on the subject of the democratic needs of the community that makes up the “Borough” then the only consistent thing they are going to find is the fact that Jim Fitzpatrick has been at the top of the league for inconsistency, unreliability on democratic demands and needs of the people.


No wonder that he was not seen to be playing any known, let alone noticeable p[art in celebrating the work of the ‘Poplar councillors’ or indeed of George Lansbury!

That Jim Fitzpatrick has not been so seen proves that alarm bells should keep ringing all across the East End.


Examining in context the role that Jim Fitzpatrick played in confusing the community about the democratic needs in the Borough:


Jim Fitzpatrick has oscillated from saying NO to an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets to doing YES without exhibiting a shred of conscientious obligation to account for his unreliable "principle" on the matter. But, then, Jim Fitzpatrick is not alone in the unreliability stance in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. He is part of the collective bankruptcy damaging the democratic rights of the East End people across Tower Hamlets that is encountered in the conduct of the publicly paid for postholders that crave and seek the places they hold in the name of the local voters and at the expense of democratic representation in the area. They undermine the values of Society and they give succour to the likes of CONDEM Golds who, like them, lacks any traceable moral consistency. Peter Golds too changed his 'stance' without giving a moral, ethical, democratic account for his betrayal of the principles that he had so publicly claimed to espouse when he made that appearance at the routine, unenlightening, uninformative, stultified ‘do’ allegedly staged in support of the “NO” ‘campaign’ by the time-servers concerned taking every fibre of life and incentive out of the proceedings. So barren were the proceedings that the “gathering” became a vacuum with the passage of every minute and while “speakers” were still being “called”. By the time the emptiness was complete, “everyone present was a speaker” and there was no-one left to EVEN “hear them” let to “listen to them’! This is how Jim Fitzpatrick,k and his then “friends in the NO to a directly elected mayor” put paid to the sustenance of a tangible grass roots movement and this is how they aided and abetted the very elements that had conspired to undermine the already fragile democratic foundations on which the still “elected” London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council “stood”.
[To be continued]