Parking and Broken Promises

We have attached an open letter from Newham People Power.

In it they express their disappointment in the Mayor and in those councillors whom they see as failing them.

Irrespective of the virtues of the emissions charge policy, their anger is compounded because of the way in which they feel they have been lied to and let down.

So let's start with the ‘Lies’. Sorry, ‘Promises’.

Number 1. I will create a fairer and less expensive parking system.

It is not appropriate to project into their minds, what this meant to those who thought she was being truthful. It is unlikely to have meant that they supported going from a first car free system to a pay for every car system. It seems logical to suppose that most supporters of the policy statement did not expect to be paying more.

The emissions charge policy (the Fiaz Car Tax) came on the back of disputes with traders, generally in the NE of the borough, (Green St and East Ham’s High St North) who were concerned at the effect on their businesses of the council’s increasingly strict parking regime in shopping areas.

For readers unfamiliar with the geography of the borough, Green St and Ham High St North are major shopping centres for the South Asian community. Green St in particular attracts shoppers from all over London. Parts of High St North seem to be dying. But the area was important to Fiaz. In its way it was a ‘dog whistle’ statement because it was a way for her to promise payback to the religious/ethnic community that she wanted to support her in the Labour Party selection process. It is increasingly clear that they now feel betrayed.

Irrespective of their views on emissions-based charging, it is difficult to assert that the new parking regime is either fairer or cheaper. 

It is also difficult to sustain the narrative that parking is not being run as a business, when Newham tops the league for money raised from parking charges and fines.

Number 2. I will put people at the heart of everything we do, and build a culture of trust and openness that involves our residents in our decision making.

The tokenistic ‘People’s Assemblies’ were asked in 2019 what they thought about the mayor’s suggestions for changes to the parking regime. Did they want them? The answer was an unequivocal ‘NO’. Because the public got the answer wrong, the matter was withdrawn from the assemblies.

When the proposals went out to public consultation, again, the public responded, again, with a resounding ‘NO’. And again, the public got it wrong, so the mayor took control and forced the measure forward.

Concerned that lobbying councillors was not sufficient, over 10,000 Newham residents signed and submitted a petition to the mayor, asking that the introduction of emissions-based charging be suspended for the period of the Covid crisis. That got thrown in the metaphorical waste paper bin as well.

If the people of Newham want the mayor to listen, they need to be clear that they should ensure that they agree with everything SHE is saying. (Does this sound like a Newham version of Donald Trump to anyone?)

Unnerved by the public hostility, some 30 councillors wrote an open letter to the mayor urging reconsideration of the policy. That is half of the council.  Five or so of them seem to have got cold feet between signing the letter and attending the Labour Group meeting on 27th January. Either that or they were bought off, or threatened. It is conceivable that they became convinced by the process of robust debate, unfortunately none of those who were so convinced offered to share their new insights or reasoning with their colleagues. So much for debate and so much for democracy.

So, Mayor Fiaz got her way. The council will ratify the charges and the people of Newham will have to cough up.  

And the aspiration for a culture of trust has evaporated as the decision-making process has become even more opaque.