Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt: Limitting 'the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him'
Cllr Anton Georgiou has sent the following message to Debra Norman, Corporate Director of Governace at Brent Council, after changes proposed by Brent Council's Labour leader in the number of councillor's required to sign a call-in request. The number proposed by Cllr Butt would require some Labour councillors to join the Liberal Democract and Conservative opposition to achieve the revised required number.
As Labour councillors are tightly whipped this would be extremely unlikely and if they did their card is likely to be marked so that they are barred from committee places and standing again.
To Debra Norman,
At the meeting the Leader of the Council asked for you to look at increasing the number of required signatures (by Councillors) for a call-in to take place from 5 to somewhere around 10.
Cllr Butt is perfectly aware that if this change were to occur, call-in’s would no longer take place in Brent as the combined Opposition (the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Group) totals 8 elected members. Labour members under the current regime, wouldn’t dare to sign a call-in scrutinising decisions by the Cabinet, for fear of retribution by their Whip. You only have to look at what happened to the Labour members who signed a call-in last term (2018-2022), related to poorly implemented LTN’s. Not one is currently an elected Councillor in Brent.
If the changes suggested by Cllr Butt are agreed to, it would be a total affront to democracy in our borough. Democratic scrutiny is the pillar of healthy and functioning governance. Seeking to stifle it in this way (which is how I view Cllr Butt’s request) sets a very dangerous precedent. It would also once again expose Brent as a place where scrutiny and inclusion of Opposition voice is not welcomed, rather it is frowned upon and limited. As you are aware, following the May 2022 local elections, Cllr Butt took it upon himself to banish Opposition Councillors from Vice-Chairing the two Scrutiny Committees in the borough. The move was seen by others in local government circles as a power grab. Frankly, it looked rather petty and insecure. It also took Officers by surprise, as the move had not been cleared with anyone (not even you?) beforehand.
Cllr Butt’s latest attempt to stifle democratic scrutiny by limiting the ability for call-ins to take place is wrong and not in the interest of our residents, who want to see Council decisions challenged forcefully when required. After all, scrutiny leads to better outcomes. Residents are clearly very engaged in local democracy, take just the recent example of a petition on the Council website regarding the blue bag recycling system, which generated close to 3,500 signatures, a record for an e-Petition of this kind in Brent - https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=267&RPID=0&HPID=0/. If Cllr Butt gets his way, decisions like this, which are clearly very unpopular with Council taxpayers, will likely be left unchallenged.
I want to make clear that if Officers agree to take Cllr Butt’s suggestion forward, the Liberal Democrat Group will robustly oppose the changes and will ensure residents are fully aware of the petty dictatorship that he leads.
I urge you to reject Cllr Butt’s suggestion and ensure that call-ins, an important form of scrutiny, in a borough with limited scrutiny already, can continue to take place, when they are required and legitimate.
I will be making this email public so a debate can begin about the Leader’s latest insecure attempt to limit the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him.
EDITOR: Brent Council Call-in Protocol LINK (Irritatingly Council documents are often undated but I think this is the latest).
55 comments:
This is an appalling abuse of power and should not be allowed.
Bent Council is a Dictatorship of the worst kind.
Bully Butt at it again. About time he was dethroned
Vote Cllr Mo Butt out at the next local election!
Can the Brent Council Chief Executive veto Cllr Mo Butt's proposal? Surely she needs to ensure that Brent Council are fully open to scrutiny???
Why do this if you don’t have something to hide. Very worrying.
Why do this unless you have something to hide? Very worrying.
I object, Brent council run is in chaos as it is
Butt is another labour leader gone rogue.
Well done to Cllr Georgiu for raising and opposing this. Butt needs to go.
It is abuse of power and dictatorship. We totally oppose
This is not acceptable
I blame the electorate, on average only 30% of the people entitled to vote turn out. The Conservatives and Libdems putting out credible candidates and campaigning, have all but given up in so many wards. How many people are aware? that Butt has at least 5/6 Councillors whom are related to him by some family connection such as marriage and that aside from his own brother. With this in mind what do you expect? He think's he's untouchable and can get away with anything.
This is appalling. The whole council only has 63 councillors, and the combined opposition only has 8 seats, hence an attempt to silence opposition voice in the council. Not any democratic institutes would introduce such a measure unless it is on its path to authoritarianism.
Edited comment from G.Lee
There is something deeply disturbing about a man desperately trying to cling to absolute power in a supposedly democratic situation.
Cllr.Butt has been in power for far too long....he has already made several systematic changes to secure his own position. Allegedly he has brought in family members to the Council to ensure his views are backed, and has bullied and threatened other Councillors who have dared to dissent and many decent Labour Councillors have quit over the past 12 years...
because he is effectively running Brent like a Colombian cartel drug lord. I've lost count of the times he has pushed through unpopular decisions, totally opposed by residents and many members of his own group. His own personal slogan seeming to be 'Butt knows Best' ... regardless of what anyone else thinks. He sits on so many committees, and has his fingers in so many pies to ensure that he can exercise his own personal agenda whenever and wherever possible...This latest move is just a continuation of this approach,and he has set it up in a way which will make it very hard for it not to go through. Thanks to the Lib Dems for highlighting, but what we really need is for those Labour Councillors who are not fully under Butt's thumb to stand up for local democracy, represent the people who voted for them, and insist that Scrutiny remains an open, honest and fair process!
There has been seemingly evident constant over-ruling of legal advice from Officers. Labour Ciuncillors have choices...they often opt for self-peeservation and patronage. Officers have a duty to articulate advice unequivocally where the fabric of democracy is being perforated - those offucers have a choice ...they often opt to further their careers and secure pag rises. I have seen it all and challenged. It will take for one only officer to say " These moves mitigate against scrutiny process-- a central pillar of democratic accountability. Will that Offucer rise up? If so they will be backed by relevant ministers (Labour or Conservative ines).
Butt needs to step down, he is not listening to the residents staying in the area. I remember Mr Gardener blaming the central government, but he forgot the mess that they are doing in Brent..
Brent Council documents will show who was Leader of Brent Council when everything went pear shaped after 12 years of mismanagement.
Brent Council documents will show which other Labour Councillors backed his plans and which other Labour Councillors sat back taking their allowances but asking asking no questions.
Shame on you Butt
Can you name them so we’re aware of the relations?
Cllr Saqib Butt is Cllr Mo Butt's brother.
And Councillor Ajmal Akram is Cllr Mo Butt's his brother-in-law.
Who an name the other Brent councillors related to him???
Above comment edited:
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Saqib Butt
Ajamal Akram
Ihtesham Afzal
Isham Moeen
Saqlain Chodhury
I am surprised so many are complaining about this and connections between councillors within the ruling party.
The only ones I would blame are the voters- who have been voting for the same old party and councillors in many previous elections.
This is a direct consequence of the absence of competition.
Isn't it time for change finally?
Re allegations regarding Cllr Butt's relations. No one has come forward yet to defend Cllr Butt. For fairness this is the position that has been put forward to me by Labour Party members:
1. Yes, there are relations of Muhammed Butt on the Council but these have been selected democratically in the wards and voted for democractically by the electorate.
2. Merely because they are relations/in-laws doesn't mean that they slavishly follow Butt's line. They are capable of making their own judgements and have done so.
3. There's no law against it or requirement that such relationships should be declared to the public.
4. Where there might be issues is regarding appointments to positions that are in the gift of the Leader of the Council.
Cllr Muhammed Butt's proposal to increase the number of required signatures for a call-in is deeply concerning. This move appears to have serious implications for democratic scrutiny within Brent Council.
Such a change could effectively render call-ins obsolete, given the limited number of opposition members available to meet the proposed new threshold. This, in essence, could create an environment where decisions made by the Cabinet go unchecked, eroding the fundamental principle of checks and balances in a democratic system.
Past instances where Labour members faced repercussions for signing a call-in shed light on a potential chilling effect, discouraging councillors from expressing dissenting views or challenging decisions. This not only compromises the diversity of perspectives crucial for robust decision-making but also raises questions about transparency and accountability.
Cllr Butt's current proposal is reminiscent of past actions that seemingly curtailed opposition voices within the council. Banning Opposition Councillors from key roles in Scrutiny Committees and now proposing changes to limit call-ins could collectively contribute to an environment where constructive criticism is stifled, and dissenting voices are marginalised.
In essence, the dangers lie not just in the specific proposal but in the cumulative impact on the democratic fabric of Brent. It's crucial to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability, and the right to scrutinize decisions for the betterment of the community. I hope that decision-makers reconsider the potential consequences of such a move on the democratic process in the borough.
What other suitable Labour candidates have not been selected to stand for election because Cllr Butt put forward his preferred candidates, those he could rely on to back him because they were related to him?
Don’t forget they get paid to represent us residents on local issues and we therefore have the right to question their impartiality!
None of the electorate would have known about their connections to Cllr Butt and for many this would have been a red flag (pardon the pun!) for them to maybe vote for another candidate.
As someone said previously if there is nothing to hide why keep things secret????
Which positions are in the gift of the leader of the Council?
See: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/05/all-power-in-hands-of-butt-as-after-10.html
People need to vote on LOCAL issues NOT national issues in the next local election.
Local elections are NOT about whether you like Rishi Sunsk and the Tory in government or not! They are about who will listen and help you where you live, who will hold Brent Council to account, to create a better local environment for all and who will spend our hard-earned council tax properly.
In the next local elections please vote for anyone else - please don't vote Brent Labour 🙏
Butt Out!!
Apart from any by-elections which may arise, Brent's next local Council elections will be in May 2026.
If local people want change, they will have to turn out and vote in larger numbers than the usual 30 - 35%. In advance of that, those wanting change will have to keep publicising what they feel is wrong with the present Labour administration, and getting their friends, neighbours and fellow residents motivated to speak out and vote for change.
I don't support any particular political party, as I prefer to make up my own mind on any issue, and not toe any line "my party" may decide.
As an independent, I would suggest to the local Conservative, LibDem and Green Party leaderships that they need to work together in preparation for the May 2026 Council elections, if they want to make a significant dent in, or even overturn, the current Labour majority of councillors.
Identify which party has the best chance of winning seats from Labour in each Ward. Let that party stand against Labour unopposed, explaining to your own supporters, if your party is stepping aside, that you believe this is in the best interests of residents in Brent, and encourage them to turn out and vote for the candidates who are not Labour.
But also, as part of any "deal" between the parties along these lines, there must be a commitment to work co-operatively with each other after the election, either in power or to provide an effective opposition to hold a continuing Labour administration to account.
And that co-operative working must include listening to, and genuinely taking into consideration, the views of local residents (not just making promises to them before an election, and ignoring what they say for the next four years).
I do believe that change is needed, but it also needs to be a change for the better.
Anonymous (4 February at 13:11) is me!
I must have accidentally touched a wrong button on my phone while submitting the comment.
Scrutiny was created by the Blair Government in 2000.
It is hardly surprising that the Brent Labour Leader Councillor M Butt is trying to destroy it - after all he did join Momentum when it suited his ends.
Momentum is very keen for "democracy" within the Labour Party - BUT not for anyone else and the Brent Labour Leader is just following their policies.
Was the photo especially chosen to point out a barking mad Leader?
Mad respect to Cllr Butt for stepping up and putting the spotlight on issues that genuinely affect us residents. His push to raise the bar for call-in requests reflects a commitment to steer clear of the unnecessary political circus.
Involving 10 councillors in this move resonates shows our Labour is still committed to enhancing the vigor of democracy, even after all these years. By streamlining the process, Cllr Butt is ensuring that council time is dedicated to addressing substantive matters rather than being bogged down by frivolous political agendas.
The concern raised about potential retribution due to party discipline seems to be a strategic false flag waved to prevent unnecessary scrutiny, as if people actually had concerns about ‘retribution’, we know they would speak out. Cllr Butt has been leader so long, and inspired friends and relatives to join, in equal standing to the entire broad church of labour, because of his affable reasonableness. I would suspect that this sort of wild claim is driven more by political scores than any genuine concern for the community.
In the broader context, Cllr Butt's initiative sends a signal that the council is committed to efficient governance, focusing on real challenges that residents face ane this is what we can expect from a starmer government. It's a leadership move that deserves acknowledgment for prioritising the needs of the community over political theatrics. Please don’t forget, if you’re not with labour, you are with the tories, just like Liberal Democrat’s were in coalition.
Having family members involved in politics is not inherently wrong; in fact, it can bring diverse perspectives and shared values to the table. Just look at prominent UK Labour figures like the Milibands and the Kinnocks – family involvement in politics runs deep.
Tulip Siddiq, drawing inspiration from her aunt Sheikh Hasina and grandfather Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, reflects the positive impact of familial political engagement in Bangladeshi politics.
Across the pond, the Kennedys in the USA, with figures like John F. Kennedy and Ted Kennedy, exemplify a long-standing tradition of family commitment to public service within the Democratic Party. Likewise, we can see our Prince Harry and Princess Meghan exemplifying how political ‘service’ run strongly through families.
In Indian culture, it is often said, "Family in politics is like a shared responsibility – it brings a deeper understanding of people's needs." This saying resonates with Labour values, emphasising a sense of shared responsibility and connection to the community, showcasing that having family members involved in politics can be a positive and enriching aspect. So, having Cllr Butt's family members in politics can be seen as a reflection of these values, and we should thank them all for the time they have given to Brent community, treating us so kindly as if we were their family too.
Cllr Butt for MP.
I wonder if all our Labour Councillors will support this? If they do we should vote them out next chance we get.
You mention Cllr Butt's "affable reasonableness" - have you actually met him??? I've witnessed him shouting at resident who was merely asking him a question about a local issue, he carried on shouting at them as they walked away so much so that others rushed over and asked the resident if they were okay.
Anonymous4 February 2024 at 22:33 says "Please don’t forget, if you’re not with labour, you are with the tories, just like Liberal Democrat’s were in coalition." BUT local government should NOT be about politics - if you vote Labour in the local elections it will not get Rushi Sunsk out of Number 10!!!
Local and national issues are completely different!
Cultural differences
How do you know this was cultural difference issue?
We have had councillors who are married to each other, councillors who met while councillors and married, and a couple of mother and son combinations. All were open about the relationship. It gets more complicated with in-laws, cousins etc.
If there's nothing to hide then be open about all these relationships - we all know instances where family members have had a great deal of influence over other family members - how do we know these family members haven't been selected to stand as candidates over other more experienced or better qualified candidates?
Sounds like a racist comment?
Is this an indictionation of what the Brent Labour Party really think of the electorate and hard working council tax paying residents here?
Just starting a Brent Council Love Where You Live grant application, one of the questions is:
"Are you or anyone in your organisation related to a current Brent Council Councillor?
If Yes, please provide details, name of councillor and relationship."
If residents and organisations have to declare this information to get a grant of just £500 why shouldn't family members standing as
Councillors have to declare their connections when they are earning over £12,000 per year of public money (from our council tax) in allowances or over £20,000 per year if they get onto a committee???
Double standards once again!!!
This is typical Butt. I've had dealings with him over HMOs and found him to be very slippery. He needs reigning in!!!!!
Cllr Butt does need reigning in. His own party won't do it, which makes it important to keep call-in unchanged!!!
Yes 👍
Dear Anon 4 February 2024 at 22:33
He's creating a dictatorship for his hubris.
Checks and balances need to be in place rather than taken away
FOR INFORMATION:
If you agree that the number of councillors needed to request a call-in should not be increased from 5, there is now a petition on the Brent Council website which you can sign:
https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=281&RPID=56542675&HPID=56542675
Did Cllr Butt write this himself?
Judging by the number of comments on this particular article about the way that the leader of Brent Council, Muhammad Butt exercises his authority, clearly struck a chord, even though the majority were posted anonymously.
Perhaps it's because people are concerned about repercussions from speaking openly?
If speaking ''openly,'' honestly, with respect and humility results in (negative) repercussions, that shouldn't make people think that they should sit in silence.
After all, power still remains with them through the ballot box if, and when, they decide to use it.
Post a Comment