Readers will recall that Mayor Fiaz is a recent convert to the role. Having stood on a platform to abolish the post, after being in post for a few years she saw the wisdom in keeping the elected office. An office which saw her pocketing almost £100k per year.

A couple of councillors objected and made their views known, and here we must acknowledge the stand taken by two councillors in particular, Cllrs Gray and McAlmont. They pointed to the illogicality of supposedly independent councillors agreeing to cast their votes without seeing what they were voting for.

The decision, we are informed, was made by the Director of Legal and Governance, (Rachel McKoy) “in consultation with the Chief Executive”, (Abi Gbago), under powers delegated within the constitution.

One of the criticisms of the Fiaz mayoralty has been her fixation on, what we hesitate to call ideology over pragmatism (only because her ideological position appears infinitely fluid). It was perhaps more to do with needing to placate what was then her political base.

Settlement Statement Branded “Devoid of Reality”, “Untrue”. Senior Council Officers Accused of Obstruction and Bending to Pressure!

 In each of the last four years, if Fiaz had simply maintained the work done under Robin Wales, Newham would have brought in between £24m-£30m more cash!

Quite how reading up on the responsibilities after being appointed is “proactive” is anyone’s guess, but that aside, on the face of it she has taken the unusual but none the less honourable course of stepping down.

This means that she held office for less time than Liz Truss!

Our very own Abi Gbago manages to draw down a comfortable £208k every year. This is nearly £25k above the median.

If there was some evidence that her work was improving the borough, truly, we would not complain, but there isn’t.

If Desai is off the ballot, the biggest winner will be Fiaz. She is already said to be gleefully asserting that the ‘non-apology’ for hurt feelings and her ability to get her subordinates to pay the legal fees for her action against her own council is somehow confirmation of misogyny and racism in the council. It isn’t!

Well done Mayor Fiaz. In six years, you have taken a well run local administration and created a basket case in which the residents are forced to foot the bills for your ineptitude.

Assuming that the Labour vote at the General Election indicated the maximum level of support, a loss of 10% in support would mean that mean that Labour would be run very close in both Little Ilford and Beckton ward if a local election was held today. Four points going to the Independents would make the result too close to call. Given that turnout in council elections is generally lower, that could spell more woes for Newham Labour, particularly if opposition parties run energetic and intelligent campaigns.

Previously, Newham had a strategy for combatting the problems associated with prostitution. It was not a new issue and was tackled in several ways.

The early years of the new century saw a growth in the number of brothels, often operating from private premises. Under the Wales administration, the council adopted a novel way to close them down. They used the planning laws. Brothels were businesses. They were operating in private premises without the required planning consents. These ‘businesses’ were closed down.

We’re Taking a Rest - Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.

Councillors Whitworth and Onovo have been elevated to positions of greatness. Both were announced as cabinet members, though with what portfolios remains, as yet, a mystery. Their profiles on the Newham website have yet to be updated.

The mayor has previously been very keen on “people power”. But she seems somewhat less enthusiastic when it comes to people expressing opinions that conflict with her own, for some reason.

We also have to wonder whether the decision on paying Fiaz’s legal costs was lawful or ultra vires. If so, the spectre of personal surcharges, unknown since the 1980s, suddenly rears its head again. Five into £100,000 works out at a nice round £20k each.

That sounds eerily familiar to news we heard from Newham recently. We reported on the

attempts to cover a shortfall in the Newham budget of some £79,259,000. And fears that

Newham was heading for bankruptcy have hit the headlines of the mainstream press.

Newham and Croydon seem to be chasing each other to the bottom. Out of 220 places nationally, Newham came in at 213^th

Residents are seeking to quash the new LTNs by way of judicial review, (which is probably less risky than engaging in criminal damage). This is normally a horrendously expensive exercise, but they are being represented pro bono by a barrister. In short according to the Telegraph, their case is that the council ““unlawfully” used low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) as a taxation on motorists to “balance the books” by raising millions of pounds from fines”.

Their popularity amongst the general public is somewhat more mixed. Well established travel routes are disrupted requiring longer, roundabout journeys for both residents and deliveries. On top of this, breaching the rules of the LTN provides another nice little earner for local councils. It is clear that some residents think that the primary purpose for their introduction is not public health but to raise funds for cash strapped councils. And few councils are as cash-strapped as Newham.