WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Tuesday, 15 October 2024
Tuesday, 10 September 2024
Brent Cabinet rejects residents' petition calling for wider discussion of the impact of additional Wembley Stadium events. Planning Committee decision tomorrow.
The petition calling on Brent Council to hold a wider consultation on Wembley Stadium's application to hold more large events was presented to the Cabinet yesterday. Presenting the petition Cllr Paul Lorber first declared an interest in having received tickets for events at the stadium that he had then passed on to residents. At the beginning of the meeting Cllr Muhammed Butt asked his Cabinet colleagues if they had any interests to declare and they remained silent - as did he.
The petition has been added to the end of this post. It points out the impact of events on residents and asks for a public meeting where residents can express their views and the Council respond accordingly. Cllr Lorber pointed out that two representations at tomorrow's decision making Planning Committee, of only a few minutes each, was not sufficient to represent the widespread concerns.
There was no direct response to that request from the Cabinet.
Cllr Shama Tatler, lead member for Planning and Regeneration was circumspect in her answer, acknowledging the potential for a contribution to be seen as predetermination of the application. She spoke of the need to balance the interests of residents with the economic drive that the stadium gives to Wembley. She said she did not want to comment any further as the planning application is live.
Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt showed no such inhibitions:
The stadium has been here longer than all of us have been born and makes a significant contribution, not just to Wembley but to the UK. The various events adds to the value of what we plan to do with working with the stadium, for it to be the great stadium it is, and also to make sure we keep our commitment and support for our residents as well.
The applications goes to Planning Committee tomorrow (Wednesday) at 6pm. Apart from the 274 signature petition there are 166 objections and just six in support. However, planning officers recommend that the Committee approve the application alongside various mitigations LINK:
The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to material planning considerations. While there will inevitably be some additional impacts associated withan increase in the number of higher capacity non-sporting events, a range of mitigation measures are proposed and some benefits are also anticipated. The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval
THE PETITION
We the undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of "Large" Events at Wembley Stadium
Plans for the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.
Large Events at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business - especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.
We call on Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.
We believe that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and documented before any decision is made.
Wednesday, 10 July 2024
Director of a Vistry Group subsidiary is associated with social media attacks on Shama Tatler during the Chingford & Woodford Green election battle
The move led to resignations from the local Labour Party. Faiza Shaheen stood as an independent and the marginal seat was held by Conservative Ian Duncan Smith with a reduced majority.
It was not just disgruntled Labour members who campaigned against Shama Tatler. The Guardian's political media editor Jim Waterson, drew attention on Twitter LINK to an attack campaign run by a local Tory councillor, John Moss, and Conservative cyber campaigner Thomas James Robert Borwick.
The Facebook attack ads were posted by 3rd Party Ltd of which Thomas Borwick is a director. The Waltham Forest Echo carries some background on the company. LINK
So far this may be what you would expect from a Conservative intervention, just staying on the right side of electoral law by not openly campaigning for a specific candidate. It could be argued that it might even help Faiza Shaheen's campaign.
But there is more to it and motivations get rather murky.
Thomas Borwick has multiple director interests SEE LINK that include a directorship along with his father, Lord Geoffrey Robert James Borwick, of Countryside Properties (Bicester) Ltd.
Countryside Properties (Bicester) Limited is a joint venture company in which Countryside Properties (UK) Limited has an interest. Countryside Properties (UK) Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vistry Group PLC. There is another 'Countryside' entity - Countryside Partnerships.
The Vistry website tell us:
Countryside Partnerships is Vistry Group’s business to business (B2B) brand. This is the partner-facing brand used when delivering mixed-tenure developments. This covers all types of homes from social rent to private sales on the open market – and everything in between, often all on the same site.
In April 2021 Countryside received approval for all four phases of the Peel project in Brent LINK.
In May 2023 a press release from Countryside Homes announced that Brent Council has selected Countryside Partnerships as preferred bidder to build 200 homes in South Kilburn. It included a quote from Shama Tatler:
Cllr Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Growth at Brent Council, said:
"We’re now almost halfway through our 15-year regeneration programme for South Kilburn and can’t wait to get started on the next phase with Countryside Partnerships. Right across the country local authorities are grappling with spiralling inflation and building costs, but despite the challenges, we are really delighted to be able to deliver this brilliant scheme for residents. This project will create more than 200 much-needed new homes, almost half of which will be for existing South Kilburn residents. Not only will local families be given the keys to safe and secure homes, they will also enjoy a healthier environment, with more greenery and trees on their doorstep and a revamped local park.”
Another press release in March 2024, this time from Vistry itself proclaimed construction starting at the South Kilburn site:
In the north of Brent, Countryside, has signed up with the Sovereign Network Group (formerly Network Homes) to build 654 homes and commercial premises in Northwick Park. The full transformation of Northwick Park is being delivered through a partnership between Network Homes, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Brent Council and the University of Westminster.
It is a scheme with not a few of the tower blocks featured in the Facebook campaign against Shama Tatler.
By now you are probably as puzled as I am.
Why did Thomas Borwick, a director within Vistry Group's several companies, launch a campaign against Shama 'Towerblock' Tatler who leads regeneration in Brent, on the basis of her support for highrise, when one of the companies is the preferred bidder for lucrative contracts in the borough for middle and highrise developments?
Tuesday, 9 July 2024
Call for direct meetings between Wembley Stadium and affected residents over increased events rejected in favour of 'improved collaborative work'
Cllr Anton Georgiou followed up his question to Cllr Shama Tatler (Regeneration and Planning) LINK on public consultation about extra Wembley Stadium events at last night's Full Council Meeting.
He said he had asked four questions and the answer to all of them was effectively 'No'.
No to further consultation led by Brent Council.
No to a detailed impact assessment by the Council.
No to an assessment by planning officers of the social impact on the lives of local people of extra events.
No to any direct compensation or benefit to local people impacted by the increased number of event days.
The applicant (Wembley National Stadium Limited) had said they met with both the leader and Chief Executive of the Council in relation to the application and that they were favourably received.
Cllr Georgiou asked, 'Why can't the applicant meet with the people who are going to be directly impacted by ever increasing events at Wembley Stadium?'
Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, replied in the absence of Cllr Tatler.
For the most part the events at the Stadium are a success, but it would be remiss of us not to recognise the disruption that Event Days can have on Brent residents.
It is imperative that any application from the Stadium, by means of mitigation, strikes a balance with the community. Let's not forget the disruption stretches wider than the Stadium itself. Chiltern Railways recently admitted they didn't have the staff or the capacity throughout the summer.
Brent Council will continue to work in partnership with everyone involved so I will be calling for improved collaborative with residents and stakeholders alike as we negotiate any future terms with the Stadium going forward.
Sunday, 7 July 2024
Revised Brent Cabinet portfolios and maternity leave cover. Cllr Tatler takes on New Council Housing Programme
Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has published revised Brent Cabinet portfolios included maternity cover for Cllr Promise Knight. Cllr Butt takes on Housing Services, Corporate Landlord Performance, Homelessness and Rough-Sleeping, Private Rented Sector and Housing Associations.
Cllr Shama Tatler adds the New Council Housing Programme and the Brent Council arms length housing organisations 14B and First Wave Housing to her Regeneration portfolio.
New Cabinet member Cllr Jake Rubin's role is more fully described and includes the Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy.
Cabinet Portfolios
Councillor Muhammed Butt – Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing
Cross-cutting
* Communications
* Borough Plan 23-27
* Strategic change programme
* London Councils and partnerships
* Brent Black Community Action Plan
Housing Services (Maternity Cover from June 17th)*
* Corporate landlord performance
* Housing Services
Housing Needs and Support (Maternity Cover from June 17th)*
* Homelessness and Rough-Sleeping Strategy
* Private Rented Sector and Strategy
* Liaison with Housing Associations
Councillor Mili Patel - Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources
Finance & Resources
* Capital Investment
* Pensions
* Shared IT Service with London Boroughs
Organisational assurance and resilience
* Health and Safety
* Emergency Planning
* Counter-Fraud and Investigation
Governance and Legal Services
* Democratic Services
* Legal Services
* Complaints
Human Resources
* Workforce and Equalities
* Organisational Development
* Diversity Ambassador
Property
* Property and assets Strategy
* Income generation
* Facilities Management
Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson - Cabinet Member for Resident Support and Culture
Residents Services
* Customer accessibility
* Customer services
* Citizenship and Registration
* Welfare support
* Debt support
* Council Tax and Business Rates
* Brent Community Hubs
* Brent Libraries
* Heritage and Culture Services
* Mortuaries, Bereavement services and Cemeteries
Councillor Harbi Farah - Cabinet Member for Public Safety and Partnerships
Public Protection
* Community Safety and Anti-Social Behaviour
* Liaison with Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
* Prevent
* Noise Nuisance
* Violence against Women and Girls
Communities and Partnerships
* Community Engagement
* Community Grants
* Voluntary sector
* Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (external)
Councillor Gwen Grahl - Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools Early Help & Social Care
* Early Years Learning
* Family Wellbeing Centres
* Children’s Safeguarding
* Children’s Social Care
* Looked after Children and Corporate Parenting
Education, Partnerships and Strategy
* Youth offending
* Brent Youth Strategy
* Brent Youth Parliament
* Pupil referral units
* SEND provision and Strategy
* Brent Family of Schools
* School Admissions and school place planning
* Schools Forum and schools’ improvement
Councillor Neil Nerva - Cabinet Member for Community Health and Wellbeing Adult Social Care
* Safeguarding
* Supported living
* Adaptation and support
* End of life care
* Carers support
* Dementia
Public Health
* Brent Health Matters
* Mental Health
* Substance Misuse
* Healthy Start
* Vaccination campaign
* Food justice
* Sport, physical activity and leisure facilities
Integrated Care Partnership
* Liaison with health partners
* Health and Wellbeing Board
Councillor Jake Rubin - Cabinet Member for Employment, Innovation and Climate Action
Insight, Innovation and Priorities
* Transformation, digital, IT, data, and innovation
* Corporate performance
* Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy
Strategic Commissioning and Capacity Building
* Community Wealth Building and Inward Investment
* Procurement strategy
* Social value
Employment and Skills
* Brent Starts and Brent Works
* Economic Development
* Good work standard and London Living Wage
* Apprenticeships
Councillor Krupa Sheth - Cabinet Member for Environment and Enforcement
Public Realm
* Trees and Ecology
* Parks and green spaces
* Clean Air
Transport planning, strategy and operations
* Roads and pavements
* Waste and recycling
* Street cleaning
* Waste enforcement
* West London Waste Authority
* Parking, Street Lighting
Regulatory Enforcement
* Building Control
* Regulatory Services and Trading Standards
* Pest Control
* Planning Enforcement
Councillor Shama Tatler - Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Growth
Inclusive, Regeneration and Planning
* Estate Regeneration
* Planning
* Local Plan
* Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
* High streets and town centre improvement
* Strategic growth
* Affordable workplaces
* West London Economic Prosperity Board
Strategic Housing (Maternity cover from June 17th)
* New Council Housing Programme
* I4B/First Wave Housing
Friday, 5 July 2024
Brent General Election Results & Queens Park By-Election result. Shama Tatler loses in Chingford and Woodford Green
Dawn Butler (Brent East) and Barry Gardiner (Brent West) have been elected as Members of Parliament (MPs) after winning seats in yesterday's General Election.
The turnout for Brent East was 49.06% and the turnout for Brent West was 51.95%.”
Brent East
Dawn Butler, Labour Party, has been elected as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Brent East.
The results in order of votes for each candidate are:
- Dawn Butler, Labour Party (19,370 votes ELECTED)
- Jamila Robertson, Conservative Party (6,323 votes)
- Nida Alfulaij, Green Party (3,729 votes)
- Jonny Singh, Liberal Democrat (2,635 votes)
- Zbigniew Kowalczyk, Reform UK (2,024 votes)
- Aadil Shaikh, Independent (1,846 votes)
- James Mutimer, Workers Party (1,052 votes)
- Amin Moafi, Independent (654 votes)
- Jenner Clarence Joseph Folwell, Independent (169 votes)
Brent West
Barry Gardiner, Labour Party, has been elected as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Brent West.
The results in order of votes for each candidate are:
- Barry Strachan Gardiner, Labour Party (17,258 votes ELECTED)
- Sushil Gangadhar Rapatwar, Conservative Party (13,465 votes)
- Paul Lorber, Liberal Democrat (3,013 votes)
- Baston Anthony De’Medici-Jaguar, Green Party (2,805 votes)
- Nadia Klok, Workers Party (2,774 votes)
- Ian Collier, Reform UK (2,061 votes)
Queen’s Park and Maida Vale constituency
Turnout: 38,618
Total votes cast: 51.11%
| Surname | First names | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
Baxter |
Helen June |
Liberal Democrats |
3,417 |
Carter - Begbie |
Angela Michelle |
Reform UK |
2,106 |
Dharamsi |
Abdulla Janmohamed |
Independent |
601 |
Gould |
Georgia |
Labour Party |
20,126 (ELECTED) |
Hersi |
Samia |
The Conservative Party |
5,088 |
Lichtenstein |
Vivien Aviva |
Green Party |
5,213 |
Menabde |
Irakli |
Workers Party |
1,792 |
QUEENS PARK COUNCIL BY-ELECTION
Leslie Anne Smith, Labour Party (3,038 votes ELECTED)
Virginia Leslie Bonham Carter, Liberal Democrat (1,462 votes)
Ricardo William Davies, Green Party (1,329 votes)
Emily Julia Sheffield, Conservative Party (1,138 votes)
CHINGFORD AND WOODFORD GREEN
Of interest as Cllr Shama Tatler was standing after the removal of the Labour candidate. In the event just 79 votes separated Tatler and the former candidate Faiza Shaheen who stood as an independent. Tory Ian Duncan Smith held the seat.
Thursday, 4 July 2024
Brent Council turn down request for public consultation meetings on Wembley Stadium's application to hold up to 54 'Large Events' a year with crowd theshold increased from 51,000 to 60,000. Decision expected in August
Cllr Anton Georgiou has tabled a question to Brent Council over Wembley Stadium's controversial application to increase the number of events and the crowd threshold at the stadium. The council reject a request to hold public consultation meetings on the proposal and suggest the application will go to Planning Committee in August when many residents will be away.
The question and response:
Question from Councillor Georgiou to Councillor Tatler (Cabinet Member for Regeneration Planning & Growth):
Large scale events at Wembley Stadium, especially when held on three successive days, have a major impact on the ability of thousands of Brent residents to go about their everyday activities.
In 1999, planning permission was granted allowing the Stadium to hold 37 'Large' events, which has subsequently been increased to 46 'Large' events. Now the stadium wants this increased again to 54.
Can the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth advise:
1. Will Brent Council hold consultation meetings to hear first hand the impact the ever increasing number of Large-scale events have on the lives of local people?
2. Has Brent Council carried out a detailed impact assessment of how Large Event days affect the lives of local people?
3. Will due regard in the planning officers assessment be given to social impacts on lives of local people and not simply financial benefits for the Stadium?
4. What direct compensation or benefits can local people expect if the changes proposed were to be approved?
Response:
The Stadium has applied to vary a condition on their planning consent to allow them to hold up to 8 additional stadium events each year. They are also applying to increase the threshold above which the event cap applies from 51,000 to 60,000 people and to change the distinction between sporting and non-sporting events.
Events at the stadium been an important feature of Brent life for over 100 years bringing both benefits and impacts to our residents and businesses. There were no restrictions on the number of events at the previous stadium but an “event cap” was introduced for the new stadium. As you are aware, this started at 37 events and is now at 46 events following previous applications to increase the cap.
The Stadium have submitted supporting information with their application which examines the implications and potential impacts of the proposal, and this is available on our website.
We are currently consulting on this application, with letters sent to over 50,000 properties in the Wembley Event Day Zone and site notices put up around the stadium. Over 100 comments have already been received and these will all be considered.
We are not intending to hold a public meeting prior to the Planning Committee meeting for the application and it’s important that comments on the planning application are provided in writing.
Impacts to local residents and businesses are being carefully considered. We do not consider profits for individual organisations such as the stadium, but we do take the wider benefits that a proposal may bring to the local economy into account.
We secure measures and obligations that are required to mitigate impacts of a proposal but are not able to secure compensation for local businesses or residents. We must also look at the difference between what can happen now and what could happen if the application is approved.
We encourage residents and local businesses to let us know what they think about the Stadium’s proposal. We are still out to consultation, and it is likely that the application will be considered by the Planning Committee in August
Sunday, 16 June 2024
Democracy in Brent – Open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet.
Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
Webcast recording of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, just about to begin.
(But Cllr. Tatler has to answer an urgent telephone
call – I wonder what that was about?)
Under my recent guest post, “Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet meeting minutes a work of fiction?”, I added several “FOR INFORMATION” comments, sharing the texts of email correspondence I’d had with Council Officers. I was trying to get them to amend the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, so that they show a true and correct record of what happened over the award of the advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge.
“FOR INFORMATION 4” was an email I’d sent on Friday afternoon to Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance), setting out the changes I believed the Council needed to make to item 7 in those minutes. But the people who finally decide (at least officially) whether the minutes of the previous meeting are a correct record are the members of the Cabinet, and this is due to happen at their next meeting, on Monday morning, 17 June, at 10am (or probably 10.01am, by the time they get to item 3 on their agenda).
In view of that, I sent the following open email to the Council Leader and all members of his Cabinet at around 11.30am on Saturday 15 June. (I know it is a weekend, but they are probably all working hard, preparing for Monday’s meeting!) My email forwarded the one I had sent to Debra Norman (and I had anonymised the name of the more junior Council Officer in the version below, to protect his privacy):
FW: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect.
This is an open email
Dear Councillor Butt and Cabinet members,
I am forwarding the email below, which I sent to Debra Norman (Corporate Director, Law and Governance) yesterday afternoon, so that you are aware of the need to amend the published minutes of Cabinet's 28 May meeting, when you deal with item 3, minutes of the previous meeting, at your next meeting on Monday morning, 17 June.
I know, from being at the 28 May meeting for this item myself, and from the webcast of it on the Council's website, that the minutes document attached to the agenda for your 17 June meeting does not show a correct record of the proceedings over item 7, the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.
In my email below, I have set out the changes which need to be made, based on the evidence in the webcast recording. I hope that you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.
While writing, I would suggest that the method of "voting" on decisions at Cabinet meetings also needs to be changed, as the present 'standard practice'* can lead to misunderstanding.
Cabinet meetings are the place where the public should be able to see and hear the borough's big decisions being made. If nobody speaks about the matters being decided, or expresses their view on the decision, for or against (particularly when there is more than one option available), then there is no demonstration of democracy in action.
At the very least, when resolutions are put to Cabinet for agreement, or otherwise, the voting should be by a show of hands. I hope that Cabinet will adopt that practice, to avoid any further episodes which could bring the Council into disrepute. Thank you.
Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
------------------------------
Forwarded message:
Subject: Fwd: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect
Dear Ms Norman,
Further to the emails today from ***** ***** and yourself, in response to my email this morning (sending you a copy of the blog article I had written, which has now been published online: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/06/democracy-in-brent-are-cabinet-meeting.html ), I am writing to confirm that I still wish to challenge the accuracy of item 7 in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024.
I have noted the explanations given by Mr *****, but believe that the main criticisms of those minutes in my article are still valid. In order to try to resolve this matter, I will set out below the amendments which I believe are required to make the minutes a correct record.
1. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:
'The Cabinet thanked those involved in the work on this and the residents who had put their views forward and RESOLVED, having noted the comments made during the presentation of the petition relating and the following options presented for consideration in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease:
Option A – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge only where the existing digital screens are located. This will not affect any of the tiled areas.
Option B – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.
(1) To approve, having taken account of the reasons detailed in paragraph 3.2.6 of the report, the award of contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease on the basis of Option B (namely advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque) to Quintain Ltd.
(2) To note the minimum guaranteed amount in respect of Option B would generate additional financial return above the required guarantee over the four-year contract period compared with Option A.
(3) To note in respect of Option B the tiled mural with plaque in honour of Bobby Moore would remain on permanent display inside the underpass framed by the lightboxes.'
Replace that section with:
‘Councillor Butt said that he would open the item up for comments from Cabinet members. No Cabinet member indicated that they wished to speak.
Councillor Butt then moved the recommendation in the Officer Report, in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease, saying that this was for Option B, ‘advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’ He asked whether he could take this in agreement from Cabinet members, and although there was no response from them, he declared that the Recommendation was agreed.’
2. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:
'Following on from the above decision, Philip Grant sought to raise a point of order, which the Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) advised he was not minded to accept on the basis of Mr Grant already having had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. '
Replace that section with:
‘Immediately following that declaration, Philip Grant raised a point of order. Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) refused to acknowledge that a point of order had been raised, but Mr Grant continued to raise it, saying: 'Point of Order. You said it was agreed, but not a single member of the Cabinet put their hand up to agree.'
Councillor Butt continued to object to Mr Grant speaking, on the basis that he had already had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. Councillor Neil Nerva tried to intervene, saying: 'Chair. On a point of order ...', but was ignored by the Council Leader. When Mr Grant finished trying to get his point of order considered by Councillor Butt, the Council Leader said: 'Thank you very much. Cabinet has agreed the recommendation for Option B. We will move on.’
These two proposed changes to the minutes of the meeting for item 7 would remedy the worst of the inaccuracies. If they are made, I would accept that the minutes would then be a true and correct record, which at present they are not. I hope that you can agree to make those changes. Thank you. Best wishes, Philip Grant.
I hope that Councillor Butt and his Cabinet will agree to correct the minutes, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Philip Grant
* This is the ‘standard practice’ I was referring to in my open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet members, as explained to me by a Brent Council Governance Officer:
‘In terms of the minutes, from my perspective these set out in full the decision made at the meeting based on the wording of the recommendations within the accompanying report, which were approved by Cabinet on the basis of Option B being clearly identified by the Leader as the substantive recommendation in relation to the award of the contract for the advertising lease and the remaining recommendations all listed for noting. These were agreed by Cabinet without anyone indicating they were minded to vote against, or seek to amend, with the minutes reflecting standard practice in the way decisions are recorded.’
Thursday, 30 May 2024
Brent councillor Shama Tatler moves into national spotlight as she is parachuted into sacked candidate Faiza Shaheen's seat
Cllr Shama Tatler is in the spotlight after London Labour announced her as the parliamentary candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green following the unceremonious sacking of long-term candidate Faiza Shaheen by Keir Starmer yesterday. This means that she has been chosen centrally by Labour rather than going through the local democratic selection process.
Faiza Shaheen, a new mother and local had been campaigning in the seat for four years. It remains to be seen whether the Brent Lead Member for Regeneration will benefit from that work.
Faiza Shaheen said on Twitter:
Really! Wow a Brent councillor with no history here at all. They would rather lose than have a left pro-Palestine candidate. This is offensive to my community.
It appears that Tatler has been parachuted into a bed of nettles amidst the current controversy over a 'Starmerite purge' and allegations of a negative attitude towards ethnic minority and female candidates in the wake of the leadership's treatment of Diane Abbott. Of course Shama Tatler is also ethnic minority and female.
There were mixed comments on Twitter with some pointing to Tatler's membership of the JLM as finding favour with Starmer. LINK One person accused her of 'trampling' on Faiza Shaheen.
Shama Tatler is on Labour's NCC the party's disciplinary committee and backed Luke Akenhurst for the NEC. I understand that there is currently a conduct complaint against her lodged with the Labour Party.
She previously sought the Labour parliamentary candidate nomination for Watford. This video was part of her campaign.
Meanwhile people are flocking to the support of Faiza Shaheen after her emotional interview on Newsnight last night.
Faiza Shaheen's statement on yesterday's events:
Following boundary changes, what are the chances of Shama Tatler winning the seat previously held by Ian Duncan Smith for the Conservatives? The website Electoral Calculus has the projection below but this does not take into account the latest developments and the possibility of an Independent campaign by Faiza Shaheen.
