Tuesday, 10 April 2012

The Muhammad Haque diagnosis of the London Onion contest: the LBC+Op Poll today - 1

1630 Hrs GMT London Tuesday 10 April 2012. By © Muhammad Haque.

It is clear today that the particular media campaign to stop Ken Livingstone getting back it the London Onion is apparently

“bearing fruit”!

The EVENING STANDARD [facsimile, left] front page this evening sums that “cheerful” mood up! Is that “it” then for Ken Livingstone this time round ?

The joint Op-Poll for LBC, ITV London and the EVENING STANDARD appears to show that Boris Johnson is ahead by 6 points. There must be more to it that that? Surely! If I have anything to say! Which I will do. Soon!

[To be continued]

Diagnosing "Dr" Kevan Collins and the dire insults that he perpetrated on the people of Tower Hamlets - 1

1110 [1100] [1050] Hrs GMT

London

Tuesday

10 April 2012.

By © Muhammad Haque

UPDATING on the untruths that a Tower Hamlets Council town clerk asserted about "quality of service" and the outrageous disrespectfulness that “Dr” Kevan Collins exhibited towards “the poor” people of Tower Hamlets borough.

[“Dr”] Kevan Collins was quoted by Ross Lydall of the London EVENING STANDARD as saying the following:

"I liked the fact that what we were doing was high quality. Not in any way was it the case that because people were poor the services they got were poor."

1. How many “ways” had “Dr” Collins been aware of the “poor” people’s treatment by Tower Hamlets Council?

2. Who were the “poor” people in Tower Hamlets?

3. How many “poor” people had been pushed into poverty by the “services” “they got” from Tower Hamlets Council?

4. How many “poor” people were trapped into poverty because of the “services” “they got” from Tower Hamlets Council?

5. How many such “poor” people were prevented from getting any answers from “Dr” Kevan Collins during his time when they experienced very poor, nay, downright offensively poor and bad “service” from Tower Hamlets Council employees?

6. Will “Dr” Collins publish the evidence so that an objective and fair assessment can be made of his particular utterance of the untruth as quoted b y Ross Lydall of the London Evening Standard?

7. How did someone who faked his name and his descriptions for the manufacturing of the Channel 4 stunt programme even assume that all the thinking people of Tower Hamlets would be either too “poor” to notice his crafty behaviour or be so overwhelmed under the mountains of problems created by the his “favourite” “staff” that they would not be able to counter his fakery?

8. Do “Dr” Collins and the man whose name he impersonated and the [same] man whom he flaunted on the fabricated programme as broadcast on Channel 4 actually believe that his [their jointly perpetrated] deception on the general viewer was justified?

9. Does “Dr” Kevan Collins assume that because he has proven to be a crafty self-server and opportunist who “got away” with the significant rewards via Tower Hamlets Council bureaucracy that therefore justifies his insult to the vast majority of Tower Hamlets people who daily experience and suffer bad service or no service from tower Hamlets Council?

10. Where is the list of “whatever we were doing” that “Dr” Kevan Collins boasted as being “high quality”?

[“Dr” Kevan Collins will be EVIDENTIALLY and contextually and ethically and democratically and transparently diagnosed further and the updates posted here and on associated AADHIKARonline and KHOODEELAAR! tweets and blogs as well as on related web sites]

_______________________________________

22 July 2010 9:22 AM

Council boss goes undercover to find staff are East End heroes

Kevan Collins and Shazzadul Hoque in Whitechapel Market
A different image of Tower Hamlets council is seen in a Channel 4 documentary tonight.

Its chief executive, Kevan Collins, agreed to spend a week undercover in preparation for forcing through cuts in excess of £50 million over the next three years (thanks to Whitehall's age of austerity).

The idea was for Mr Collins to go back to the "shopfront" and see how well - or poorly - the council's £1.2 billion annual budget was spent each year. But don't expect a horror story - what transpired was a soft-focus piece showing council staff as salt-of-the-earth EastEnders not even portrayed in the BBC1 soap.

Mr Collins, who partly disguised himself by changing his name to Colin, having his hair cropped, growing a beard and wearing a beany hat, also comes across well, too. It's a nice watch - Undercover Boss screens at 9pm - but hardly what I'd call investigative journalism.

After spending a week incognito, Mr Collins revealed his true identity to shocked staff - and said he had nothing but praise for their dedication to their jobs.

His council, which covers some of the most deprived parts of the East End, could lose up to a quarter of its government grant.

Mr Collins, 49, who began his career as a primary school teacher in Mile End, told me: "I liked the fact that what we were doing was high quality. Not in any way was it the case that because people were poor the services they got were poor."

* You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/RossLydall

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Citing your quoting “Dr” Kevan Collins:

"I liked the fact that what we were doing was high quality. Not in any way was it the case that because people were poor the services they got were poor."
Questions arise:
Does that mean that poverty is a perfectly acceptable thing for the chief executive of the Council which is paying him over £200,000 per year in salary? Isn’t “Dr” Collins also “quietly” callous because the ONLY CASE where the “Services” were NOT poor were the ones involving those who were on hundreds of thousands of pounds in salary? How would THEY know what poor service was? The people who would know something about poor service would be those individuals, families and their neighbours who were being sanctioned, targeted, harassed by the DWP whose programme of poverty creation was being conducted by the services of Councils’ benefits administration departments. Have you asked “Dr” Collins to tell you about how many “social landlord” organisations [created to RAISE the levels of incomes of Tower Hamlets Council’s groups of employees who are now holding key positions in those organisations] carrying out de facto deportation schemes, driving entire groups of people out of their home neighbourhoods, estates and even borough? Have you noticed how stunningly quiet all those “elected” Councillors are as they have been complying with the agenda of the CONDEM Collusion carrying out the cuts programme that is driving the community out of Tower Hamlets? UNDERCOVER BOSS perfectly immune from audit or accountability as he “presides” over the destruction of the community by the cuts programme currently on!
1325 Hrs Wednesday 04 May 2011

Executive elected mayors in England: Ed Miliband is failing to take sharp action for democracy

0835 Hrs GMT

London

Tuesday

10 April 2012

Editor © Muhammad Haque.

Ed Miliband is failing to take sharp action for democracy thus missing out on vital backing waiting out there in the communities across the country.


Ed Miliband should go all the way and scrap the executive elected mayor system itself. Not just bar Labour card-carrying MPs from seeking the authoritarian egocentric, corrupting posts. Delete the system altogether from the proposed Manifesto for the Labour Party.....


[To be continued]



The following COMMENT against elected, executive mayor system has been taken by AADHIKAROnline from the Guardian.co.uk web site today.

_________________


dangers of power freak politics

A comfy consensus has been reached on the merits of elected mayors, despite an absence of any real debate on the issue

Daniel Pudles 1004
Illustration by Daniel Pudles

The north-south divide, the tyranny of the City, the decline of mainstream politics, and more: to listen to a range of voices that have now settled into comfy consensus, no end of British problems can be solved by the introduction of elected mayors.

Strange that such a unanimous chorus should be going up just as Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone are again proving that the first casualty of mayoral elections may be serious politics. But anyway, 3 May will see referendums on the adoption of directly elected mayors in another 11 cities, including Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield, imposed by central government and apparently supported by the entire political establishment.

What powers might they possess? From the minister in charge, the assuredly modernised Greg Clark, there have been only vague half-ideas. Even the idea's supporters admit than in most places, real debate has failed to materialise. Liverpool, though, has decided to jump straight in, and nominations closed last week. By way of heralding a fresh start,all 12 candidates are white men, the frontrunner is the current leader of the city's Labour council, and as if to decisively push things into the 21st century, the field also includes Tony Mulhearn, whose had his last turn on the national stage when he and Derek Hatton were pioneering municipal Trotksyism. How any of this is meant to get Liverpool going is anyone's guess.

It also fits with the dreary, monocultural history of the elected mayors we've had so far. Maybe it's down to the way that, to quote one of the Liverpudlian candidates, "big personality politics appeals to testosterone-charged male egos". For all the claims that mayoral contests can weaken the grip of party bureaucracies, it's probably also traceable to the fact the usual machines remain very powerful. Whatever, the figures are remarkable: of the 14 people currently serving as elected mayors in England, two are women and only one is from an ethnic minority. Much the same picture applies in Salford, where a referendum in January saw a "yes" vote on an 18% turnout, leading to an election this May. Out of a field of 10, only two candidates are women, and all are white.

Meanwhile, up in Doncaster, they are looking forward to a vote on whether to keep their mayoral system, introduced in 2001 in the wake of the infamous "Donnygate" council corruption scandal. The present incumbent is Peter Davies, of the English Democrats, who won the job in 2009, with 22% of first preferences on a 36% turnout (that is, 8% of the total electorate). Following on from the amazingly troubled tenure of his predecessor, he then commenced three years of misrule: among his greatest hits are the claim that there is "no such thing as child poverty" and the suggestion that Britain could learn about something about family values from the Taliban.

In 2010, the audit commission declared that Davies lacked "the political skills to build and maintain consensus" and acknowledged that his public statements had served "to worry sections of the community who are already vulnerable". Eric Pickles duly sent a team of commissioners to South Yorkshire to "support, challenge and monitor" the running of the town and report back to Whitehall – an arrangement that remains in place.

This is what happens when two very dangerous factors collide: low and unrepresentative turnouts and powers that can be exercised with surprisingly little scrutiny, let alone checks and balances (both Davies and Doncaster's previous mayor have ignored votes of no confidence). Note also that contrary to all those claims that elected mayors are ideally positioned to lead local economic revivals, there is no evidence to this effect, nor any proof that mayors' arrival on the political scene increases political engagement – indeed, if the narcissistic tedium that currently grips the London contest is anything to go by, sooner or later you may well get the opposite.

Can we at last recognise the risks and delusions of Superman politics, whether national or local? In Birmingham, the current "No" campaign is titled "Vote No to a Power Freak", and local nerves are being jangled by the momentum behind two of the Labour contenders: Liam Byrne, who has some claim to being New Labour circa 2001 incarnate; and Siôn Simon, last seen establishing his credentials for high office with his miserable online spoof of David Cameron's "webcameron" wheeze. Neither looks like the kind of figure who might single-handedly lead a city to unheard-of heights of renown and success.

By contrast, look at Manchester, whose spectacular regeneration has been accomplished with the leadership of a boring old traditional city council, and where plenty of local opinion is completely bamboozled by the imposition of a mayoral referendum. "Structural change rarely does anything other than take time and energy away from more important things," reckons its eminently successful leader, Richard Leese. "What is on offer at the moment does not – in any way, shape or form – help us with what we want to do."

Quite so. What the great mayoral delusion really highlights is the modern establishment's talent for messing with things for the sake of it, with no sense of history, experience, or even clarity about what exactly they want. All that, and dangers that have barely even been talked about.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree




The Guardian piece against elected executive mayors: BHANGEELAAR! the first comment


The Guardian piece against elected executive mayors: BHANGEELAAR! the first comment



What the great mayoral delusion really highlights is the modern establishment's talent for messing with things for the sake of it, with no sense of history, experience, or even clarity about what exactly they want. All that, and dangers that have barely even been talked about.



Quoting the Guardian piece, the last paragraph


Your [the Guardian writer ] summary [quoted] is an accurate representation of the crisis ad threat against local democracy that a executive mayor system poses if the evidence in the “inner city” [“one of the poorest” boroughs...] Tower Hamlets is any guide.

You may recall, on the published facts, that an abysmally unaudited

claim was made in May 2010 by the then holder of the post of “chief executive” in the local Tower Hamlets Council to the effect that a “referendum ” had been duly held and that the electors had voted “YES” to having an elected executive mayor in Tower Hamlets.

Serious concerns were raised by campaigners against the dangerously undemocratic, authoritarian and wasteful “executive mayor system” with the then Council Chief Executive post holder who also doubled as “the Returning officer” for the Borough. He failed to legally, constitutionally or transparently address those concerns. As did the Electoral Commission. Tower Hamlets, thus, was sent into a state where those who disrespected the values of democratic representation could indulge the whims and the abuses that authoritarian republics are notorious for. Your summary therefore needs evidential examination in light of what has been occurring o in this Borough since May 2010.

ALL the electorally active “Political” parties and groupings in Tower Hamlets staged a de facto synchronised U-turn. It was exhibited as a unanimity on having an “elected, executive mayor” . This was in stark contrast with the stance “against” an elected executive mayor system that had been “shown” during January 2006 and April 2010 by the “lead” post holders on behalf of the Labour, the Conservative and by the Lib Dems as councillors on Tower Hamlets Council.

Why had these “main” Parties and groupings behaved in that contradictory way?

This is ode question that contains the main components of the moral and the ethical problems that afflict all the three parties. and their acolyte sub-parties that too pander to the most undemocratic urges in the opportunist, morality-free “"political" post holder, local, regional and “national”.

The imposition of the antidemocratic mayor system is in effect the imposition of the worst form of “governance” and those behind this deeply regressive imposition should be stopped now from destroying what remains of local democratic accountability.

The Guardian can play a very positive prodemocratic part in this time of widespread antidemocratic initiatives being imposed and spread across the country.

There is a serious void as seen in the opportunistic, ethics-free, morality-free behaviour of the majority of MPs as witnessed during the recently memorable period of the “expenses scandal” .

The collective “power” of the Trade unions has not been brought to be exercised in defence of local democracy. Local people, ordinary people are ow being scrapped as far as the deterrence against authoritarian drift of Society goes. Elected executive mayor system typifies that chilling antidemocratic iceberg.

Boris Johnson’s persistent refusal to withdraw a remark against his rival is a mere but typical sample of the toxic antisocial arrogance that the incumbent is allowed to feel. A comparable instance can be found in Ken Livingstone's last months in office in the London Onion before the May 2008 poll, especially over Livingstone’s defiance of the particular London Assembly members at the time who had the “temerity” to EVEN express concerns about the financial affairs over the LDA, one of the funding outfits that had been placed at the disposal of the incumbent in the London Onion. Such incumbents cannot be expected to recognise ordinary people who do not have the resources that the Labour Party's candidate in context has.

Time to urgently return English local areas to a form of democracy that had been fought for by so many valiant, selfless people who made the difference and who founded the Society that is now being subliminally crumbled.

[Ends the substantive texts of the BHANGEELAAR! piece posted on the Guardian web site i the past 3 hours ]

[ The evidential, contextual diagnosis of the antidemocratic imposition of the over-contrived ad over-disguised “elected executive mayor” system on English local communities is o be continued by the campaigns and the campaigners.]