UNISON NEC elections: Voting Starts April 17th

 I think most people who follow this blog and my social media, know I am standing for the Community General Seat. My plea is that as many UNISON members vote as possible in these important elections. While my wish is to get rid of a majority NEC faction that lost a vote of No confidence in it (but refused to resign) at our sovereign National Conference. It is really important that members turn out and vote as a democratic principle. 

We have had tiny turnouts in the past and no wonder we get unrepresentative and dysfunctional representation (in my view) if only 5% of the membership participate.  So regardless of your views, UNISON members please VOTE. 

The Newham Mayoral Referendum: history and origins by Cllr John Whitworth.

A great article by my West Ham Labour Councillor colleague,  John Whitworth, on the Newham Mayoral Referendum.  

https://newhamforchange.org/home/the-newham-mayoral-referendum/

Not only a historical record but I in particular, agree with his final point. 

"Many of the committee model campaigners from Newham will be willing to use their experience to support the challenge to the mayoral model in the October referendum in Croydon posed by the leader and cabinet alternative – and indeed in other authorities where the directly-elected mayor is contested."

Some of us will be arranging a future meeting of people interested in keeping N4C going (in a different form) as a wider campaigning body for the democratic reform of local government. 

We're voting for change - Newham Referendum 6 May 2021

Newham voters are going to the polls today Thursday 6 May to decide how their council is run.

This is a one-off referendum - if you don't vote today, you won't get another chance for at least ten years.

Vote for Change for a fairer, more democratic council - don't miss your chance.

Polling stations are open from 7am to 10pm. You do not need your polling card to vote. If you forgot to post your postal vote, you can hand it in at a polling station. Find your polling station at https://wheredoivote.co.uk/

#VoteForChange #NewhamReferendum

Overwhelming majority of West Ham Constituency Labour Party delegates vote to get rid of Newham Mayoral model

 

At the General Committee meeting tonight of West Ham Labour Party delegates, they voted overwhelmingly (74% in favour, 14% against; 12% abstain) to support motions to get rid of the existing Executive Mayoral model in Newham and replace it with a more democratic Committee model. 

Only one delegate spoke against the motion (even though she said she was in favour but did not like the call for branches to encourage their members to campaign in favour). 

Check out:-  

wording of motions : https://www.johnslabourblog.org/2021/02/branches-vote-unanimously-to-get-rid-of.html

https://newhamforchange.org/

https://www.facebook.com/newhamvotingforchange/

https://twitter.com/ForNewham

Newham Voting for Change – on Revive FM

 "Newham Voting for Change activist Josephine Grahl was interviewed today (Monday) on community radio station Revive FM.

She talked to Simon Rush about the reasons for the referendum, the advantages of the committee structure, and the way the council will work if Newham voters opt for the committee structure in May’s referendum.

You can hear the full interview below:" hat tip  https://newhamforchange.org/category/news/

Newham for Change Facebook

Audio Player

00:00

00:00

Branches vote unanimously to get rid of Elected Mayoral model in Newham

This evening I went to West Ham (as Cllr)  and Forest Gate North (as member) branch Labour Party meetings and both voted unanimously for this motion (one abstention) 

"This Branch notes that: The Newham Governance Referendum on 6^th May 2021 will offer the electorate a choice between confirming the current Directly-Elected Mayor & Cabinet Model and adopting the Committee Model of local governance.

This is a very different and updated approach from previous old- style Council Committee Models, which a number of Councils have introduced successfully.

Full Council – not the mayor or a ‘strong leader’ – holds all the decision-making powers. It is full Council’s decision whether to exercise those powers directly or to delegate them to committees or to officers.

·         Full council retains a number of key functions, including responsibility for the overall policy framework, the corporate plan, the budget and the setting of council tax;

• Full Council appoints a leader, but without executive powers. They can be replaced by full Council – which not an option that exists under Newham’s current arrangements.

• Committees will be based on major functional areas, such as housing, finance, education and resources; along with regulatory committees such as planning and licensing; governance committees such as audit and standards; and statutory scrutiny committees, such as health.

·         Committees will be politically balanced, so the majority party maintains a dominant position in decision-making;

• There is an opportunity to establish local committees based on ward or multi-ward geographical areas, with the relevant ward councillors as the membership.

This Branch believes that:

·         the Committee Model ensures that there is greater equality between council members, with less of a hierarchy, as the council leader and committee chairs are elected by full council and all councillors belong to a decision-making committee;

·         because all the councillors take part in the decision-making process, there are more points of contact through which their party members and the public can influence decisions

·         as all councillors have a role in decision making, there is less reason for in-groups and out-groups to form - with the latter feeling excluded or like second-class councillors;

·         with members of committees being obliged to co-operate, there is less likelihood of antagonistic factions developing;

·         as every councillor has a role in decision making and seeing decisions enacted, they have collective responsibility for the council’s actions and cannot escape accountability to their party members and the public.

 This Branch therefore advises its members to campaign and vote for the Committee Model in the Newham Governance Referendum.

Game on: Court confirms choice for Newham in May: "It is between a more open and democratic system & status quo"

 

Check out release by "Newham voting for Change" that the Courts have confirmed today that there will be choice in the referendum in May between the current all powerful Newham Council Executive Mayor and the more open and democratic Committee model. 

I hope that everyone who wants fundamental change in the way we do things in Newham will now support the committee model in May. 

Court result – judge finds in favour of Newham Council

29TH JAN 2021

The court case against Newham Council has concluded, with the judge upholding Newham’s decision to hold a referendum giving voters a choice between the committee structure and the current Directly Elected Mayoral system.

The full judgement can be found here.

Newham Voting for Change are delighted that the referendum on the 6 May 2021 will offer a real choice and a chance for change in Newham.

Councillor John Whitworth, who has been a long term champion of the committee model, said:

“The committee structure is a genuine alternative to the Mayoral system, and we think Newham voters will be enthusiastic about having a real say in how their council is run. We look forward to making the arguments for the committee system and we encourage everyone with an interest in local government to get involved in our campaign.”

Full press release here.

LAUNCH OF THE NEWHAM CAMPAIGN FOR A COMMITTEE STRUCTURE – Tuesday 8th December 7pm

"Join us on Zoom for a public online meeting to launch Newham Voting for Change – the campaign for a committee structure in Newham. 

In May 2021 Newham will hold a referendum on how the local council is run. We are campaigning for the committee system, which is more 

OPEN 
REPRESENTATIVE 
DEMOCRATIC 
ACCOUNTABLE 

We’ll be joined by: 

➢ Ruth Hubbard, Sheffield It’s Our City – Sheffield Council will also be holding a referendum on changing to a committee structure and Ruth will talk about the successes of the Sheffield campaign. 

➢ Cllr Ruth Dombey, Leader of Sutton Council (Lib Dems) – Ruth will talk about how Sutton Council works with the committee structure. 

➢ Cllr Andrew Ansell, Basildon Councillor (Labour) – Andrew will talk about how Basildon Council operates day to day with a committee system in place. 

➢ Speaker from the Tower Hamlets referendum campaign – TBC. 

Chair: Josephine Grahl, Newham Voting for Change All welcome | Tuesday 8th December | 7-8pm register for the meeting on Zoom"

check out  https://twitter.com/ForNewham, Website https://newhamforchange.org/ and Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/newhamvotingforchange 

(there is an official flyer with a very nice but rather boring logo. I much prefer mine)

D-Day 75th Anniversary - Democratic Band of Brothers V Fascists

I posted this on the 65th anniversary on 6 June 2009. The current President of the United States is of course a rich draft dodger which in no way diminished the courage of the young Americans who died far from home on this day.

"I have been watching the moving TV coverage of the D-Day remembrance ceremonies taking place today in Normandy. While on holiday recently I read the book “Band of Brothers” by Stephen Ambrose.

I had never watched the original series on TV but my 16 year old nephew encouraged me to buy the DVDs when his father and I took him to the Normandy beaches for the weekend on his birthday a few years ago.

The book was even better than the Tom Hanks and Spielberg TV series in one way since it also told the story of the individual soldiers before (and after) the War.

The vast majority were very ordinary working class Americans, many of whom had known hard times during the “Great Depression”. The book is also a more honest account of the very human failings of individual officers and soldiers, who with incredible bravery parachuted into Normandy alongside their British, Canadian and French allies 65 years ago last night.

In these somewhat difficult economic and political times it is perhaps important to remember Ambrose’s conclusion that the proficient, well equipped and professional war-hardened German Army was defeated essentially because a democracy produced better soldiers and armies than dictatorships. The Americans were no more patriotic or braver than the Germans but freethinking liberal democracies produce soldiers with more élan, flexibility and imagination.

One example of this would be if they received orders that they thought were stupid, most of the officers, NCOs and soldiers would ignore them if they could. So despite practically none of the very young American airborne conscripts initially having any combat experience they defeated time and time again superior numbers of German troops.

Recently we have been quite rightly wallowing in our own political and economic class failings that we sometimes forget that democracy is of course the worse form of government - save all the rest.

(main picture is from the Bayeux British War grave)"

A year since Rokhsana Fiaz elected was as Labour Party Candidate for Newham Mayoral Contest 2018

What a great picture. I believe taken after 3pm that day when the Labour Party informed Rokshana that she had been elected by Labour Party member in Newham to be our candidate in the Newham directly elected Mayoral elections on 2018.

Bizarrely, I was on a train when I heard the news, while coming from Richmond following a debate with Vince Cable MP at the Richmond UNISON AGM.

What a fantastic result. One of the best days in my life ever.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has". Margaret Mead

https://www.johnslabourblog.org/2018/03/blog-post.html

Newham Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz delivering on election manifesto promises and shares power

On Monday evening Newham Council Cabinet & Mayoral proceedings was important, historic, a little exciting yet also reassuringly mundane. In the finest tradition of UK Local Government.

There was a mass of important Council business to wade through including a budget update a report on the eye wateringly painful decisions we will have to make due to the Government's ongoing Austerity programme and huge cuts to our budget.

However, alongside unanimous support for a policy calling on any Newham School considering becoming an academy to firstly hold a ballot of staff and parents there was also really significant democratic and constitutional change agreed.

See Evening Standard report

"London’s first directly elected female mayor has surrendered most of her executive powers less than six months into the job".

Rokhsana Fiaz, the mayor of Newham, has agreed to delegate executive decision-making to her cabinet of senior councillors.

Elected mayors usually hold more power than traditional council leaders because they can approve major plans alone. But Labour’s Ms Fiaz has now pledged that significant decisions will in future be made with a majority vote of the mayor and cabinet — diminishing her own power over the borough.

She said: “This represents the most fundamental change to the elected mayoral model since its introduction [in Newham] way back in 2002.

“This scheme of delegation essentially moves all the decision-making that is held by one person, me, to the entire cabinet, which includes six members. It is all part of the process of bringing good governance, better decision-making and transparency to the way in which we do business.”

Ms Fiaz was elected by residents in May, winning 73.4 per cent of the vote after ousting Britain’s longest-serving elected mayor Sir Robin Wales as Labour candidate in a fierce party selection battle.

The former charity and public relations worker was backed by Momentum and given support by its founder Jon Lansman during the contest. John Gray, cabinet member for housing on Newham council, said: “It is not often that politicians give up power.

“Effectively the mayor is still the mayor but she has delegated power to make decisions to the whole cabinet. We have collective cabinet responsibility, which I think is something we all welcome.” After her election Ms Fiaz promised to eventually hold a public referendum on Newham’s directly elected mayor model.

She described herself as “agnostic” about the position and said the vote would be part of a “democracy review” in the borough. The referendum is likely to take place two years into her term.

(So on Monday it was the last ever Mayoral Proceedings and in future Newham Council Executive decisions will be made by the Cabinet. She is still the directly elected Mayor and it is still a powerful position. She can appoint (or replace) cabinet members, can make decisions alone in an emergency and chairs cabinet meetings. 

What she has done is to give up her legal right to make all decisions herself and give this to the cabinet, who will collectively discuss and (if necessary) vote on decisions. 

In a somewhat similar way to the UK government cabinet which is chaired by the Prime Minister. Unlike the previous administration, where the Mayor acted in a Presidential manner, like the USA or France. 

As I lifelong collectivist, I am really pleased at this decision but realise that cabinet members will have to raise their game from being purely advisory to being a decision making part of the Executive) 

A new era for Newham - Labour Briefing

Hat tip my fellow ward Councillor, John Whitworth - Labour Briefing 23 April.

"ON 15TH MARCH 2018, after many years of struggle for democratic governance in Newham, Cllr Rokhsana Fiaz won the selection for the Labour Party mayoral candidate in the May elections by 861 votes to 503 for the seemingly perennial incumbent, Sir Robin Wales. This larger than anticipated margin of victory represented a triumph for local democracy after 16 years of authoritarian rule - which had fully exposed the dangers of the directly-elected mayoral model.

A small number of party members had sustained a continuous fight for democracy in Newham Labour Party and council since it became apparent  in 2002 that Robin Wales would use the mayoral constitution to gather all power into his own hands. After the May 2014 local elections, this struggle began to have an effect within the council. A group of eleven councillors quickly coalesced to work for open debate, more effective scrutiny and greater transparency regarding the council’s dealings, particularly financial, as well as to replace the mayor when the opportunity arose.

When the first mayoral trigger ballot was declared in October 2016, a number of party members rallied around the democratic councillors to form a core group of about 25 campaigners for an open selection. The movement was fuelled by a frustration with the trigger ballot process and its mismanagement by Newham Local Campaign Forum and London regional officials, and finally by the intransigence of the NEC in refusing to grant a rerun or order an open selection.

This group then took part in a year-long stand-off with the Labour Party before ultimately wrenching from the NEC the authorisation for a trigger ballot rerun in January-February of this year. The struggle to remove Robin Wales did not constitute a simple left-right conflict - it was rather one of democrats versus fixers. The movement to obtain the selection of Rokhsana Fiaz in his place was a democratic alliance which mobilised members from across the Labour Party spectrum, including Momentum members and a few right wingers, with its centre of gravity located around the centre-left of the party.

Between the mayoral trigger ballot rerun and the mayoral selection contest, the delayed councillor selections took place in February. As Newham has a record of electing Labour candidates to all 60 seats, the profile of the councillor candidates is likely to prefigure that of the council. However, as nearly half of the candidates are new and some of them are not widely known, it is difficult to predict the balance of forces in the new council.

Nevertheless, it would be fair to classify the candidates into three approximately equal groups: those who are proven supporters of Rokhsana Fiaz (around ten of whom are firmly on the left), those who remained committed to Robin Wales until the end, and those whose allegiance has not clearly emerged. It is perfectly possible that members of the two latter groups will gravitate towards the new mayor.

Out of the mayoral selection campaign came a transformational manifesto. It is committed to placing  housing  at  the top of the agenda, with an undertaking to build 1,000 new council-owned homes within four years to  be  let  at  social rent levels, while ensuring that 50% of developer-built homes will be council- owned and also  let at  social rent levels. Another notable commitment is to ensure that the benefits of Newham’s economic development are shared among the residents by using the council’s procurement and supply chain to spend public money locally, thereby supporting the borough’s businesses.

With  education,  there  is  a  promise to   develop   stronger   partnerships with schools and oppose further academisation. There is also a pledge to double the number of youth hubs and break the cycle of violence by working with young people to set up a youth safety action group. Recognising the need to democratise local governance after a long period of autocracy and cronyism in Newham is an undertaking to build a culture of trust and openness that involves residents in the council’s decision-making process. This also entails a promise to hold a referendum by 2021 on the continuation of the directly elected mayoral system.

With a democratically minded mayoral candidate and a radical manifesto is the exciting prospect of a new era in Newham. There is great optimism that this project of transformation will be accepted by the electorate, carried through by the new mayor, and supported by the majority of the council and Labour Party".

(Update: Rokhsana Fiaz was elected Executive Mayor 3 May with a massive 73% of the vote which is more than 12% better than the previous Mayor. All the 60 Councillors elected that day are also Labour with similar majorities. http://www.johnslabourblog.org/2018/05/re-elected-newham-council-local.html)

"Veteran Newham mayor faces deselection fight ahead of local election contest"

For once, a balanced article by the London Evening Standard about Labour Politics. I and many other Councillors and Party members support the call by Cllr Marriott, Charlene Mclean and West Ham Labour Party for an open selection to decide the next Labour candidate.  I think that the "trigger" process in Newham has been completely discredited by the so-called previous "process".

Robin Wales has been in charge of Newham since 1995 and if he is not "triggered" then he would have been in power for a staggering 27 years (until 2022) without any open democratic process since 2001.  

The directly elected Newham Mayor is a hugely powerful position responsible for over 300,000 residents, employing thousands of staff and a Billion pound plus turnover.

There is also not enough time for another "trigger" before May 2018, which practically everyone believes will result in Robin Wales being "triggered", which will automatically lead to an open selection. 

We also have not finished the appeals for Council candidates who did not pass their initial interviews.  We therefore have no Labour candidates in place to organise the May election for the 60 Newham Labour seats.

"Veteran Newham mayor faces deselection fight ahead of local election contest"

Labour members in the borough have written to the party’s National Executive Committee calling for an open vote to pick their candidate.

Newham Labour councillor Julianne Marriott, who was behind the letter, said she did not believe another trigger ballot was “in the best interests” of residents.

It comes after Sir Robin called for the first result to be scrapped after legal action was launched.

Charlene McLean, chairman of the West Ham constituency party which passed a no-confidence vote in the ballot, has also written to Labour general secretary Iain McNicol. In her letter, seen by the Standard, she warned there was not “sufficient time” to run a new trigger ballot, followed by an open selection if Sir Robin were deselected, as the local elections were in just four months’ time.

The calls follow the disputed trigger ballot in autumn 2016 which Sir Robin won by 20 votes to 17. Eleven out of 20 local Labour wards called for other candidates to be on the slate.

It was announced this month that the trigger ballot would be rerun following claims of irregularities and a legal challenge.

Ms Marriott said: “I believe we should go straight to an open selection as that will be the result of a rerun of the trigger ballot.”

The successful candidate is almost certain to become mayor in the Labour-dominated borough".

Hat tip pic Jo G

My Question On Risk to Full Council before it was Cut

This is the question that I submitted to the Newham Council Chief Executive for tonight's Full Council meeting as an elected Councillor complying fully under its constitution and rules yet my questions ended up being cut.

Dear Kim

Please submit the following question

Question to Cllr Lester Hudson

"I refer to Agenda Item 12 “Annual Treasury Management Report 2015/2016 page 51 of the Yellow Book item 3.8.

While I would agree with the aspiration in 3.8.1 for the Councils investments to mirror that achieved by the LBN Pension fund (and other Pensions schemes) would not Councillor Hudson agree that consistent outperformance of investment return is not just down to good fund management but also depends on the taking of risk. The more risk you take the more return you may achieve. However, equally the more risk you take then the more money you can lose.  With Pension funds the risk of things going wrong are shared. Employers and employees may have to pay more and benefits may be cut. Most importantly for pensions that is also guarantors in the private sector the Pension protection fund and in the public sector (in theory) the British State. 

While I am not against the taking of appropriate long term financial risks if the Council invests in “alternative” investments such as solar farms or toll tunnels, takes risks and it all goes horribly wrong then who will be our guarantor?"

Regards

John Gray

Councillor

This is the question below that was actually read out at Council by the monitoring officer without my agreement to these "changes". 

I refer to Agenda Item 12 “Annual Treasury Management Report 2015/2016 page 51 of the Yellow Book item 3.8.  If the Council invests in “alternative” investments such as solar farms or toll tunnels, takes risks and it all goes horribly wrong then who will be our guarantor?

Needless to say that I didn't get an answer to either. 

Anyone see anything wrong with my original question? 

Why I am Voting NO for a Democratic Choice: Newham Labour Mayor candidate selection process 2018

Within the next week or so thousands of Labour Party members who live in the London Borough of Newham will be invited to local meetings to vote by secret ballot on the future ‎of the Newham Labour Mayor candidate for the 2018 election. This process is known as a "trigger ballot" (or "affirmative ballot") and is due to be completed by 4 December 2016.

As with nearly all things in the Labour Party (especially in Newham)‎ this process is not straight forward and is complicated. Let me try to explain it here and in my next post I will give my reasons why I will be voting "NO" for what I believe to be the only way to get a real democratic choice for members.

In Newham, unlike the great majority of London Boroughs and UK councils we have what is called a directly elected Executive Mayor. This is a hugely powerful and important position. Newham has a budget of some £250 million, employs thousands of staff and has a £1 billion per year turnover.

The Mayor controls practically all "executive power" in Newham such as council tax, housing, rubbish collection, street cleaning, anti-social behaviour, budgets, staffing, parking, employment training, Community hubs, environment protection and social services. It is also very influential on planning, licencing, policing, transport, health services and education.

The Executive Mayor and local Councillors are elected every 4 years and the next election is due in May 2018. The Labour Party obviously has to have a process on how to choose its candidate for Executive Mayor ‎in 2018.

What has been "decided" (so far - it is being challenged) for Newham is that there will be a "trigger ballot" process. Eligible labour party members (and I will come to back to "eligible" later) as mentioned above will be invited to local meetings and checked in if they are eligible. There will then be a 30 minutes debate by members on whether to simply allow the incumbent labour Mayor, Robin Wales, who has been the candidate since 2002, to be the Labour candidate again in 2018 or whether there should be an 'open selection process' in which other party members could apply to be a candidate.

Each speaker will be limited to speak for 3 minutes and you could get a maximum of 10 speeches for or against Robin Wales being the Labour candidate again.

There will be a secret ballot and the question on the ballot paper will be something like "do you want Robin Wales to be the Labour Mayoral Candidate in 2018" Vote YES or NO

If a majority of official Labour branches (also known as wards), affiliates (trade unions and socialist societies) and Forums (for example West Ham Women's Forum) in Newham vote YES then Robin Wales will remain the Labour Mayoral candidate in 2018 but if a majority vote NO there will be an open selection process.

This is not a "one member, one vote" (which I would support) instead each branch, affiliate, forum has one vote. Regardless of how many members they have in their particular branch etc (I told you it was complicated). Again it is how the "majority" of branch, affiliates and forums vote that will count. 

I wonder what would happen if there is a tie?

To be clear if the decision is NO then Robin Wales will still be automatically shortlisted as a possible candidate. It just means others can apply as well and members will have a democratic choice.

I will be voting NO ‎and hope that there will be an open democratic process with more candidates to give a real choice and will explain my reasons in future posts.

(picture Newham Council coat of arms) 

Happy 50th Birthday London Boroughs - time to change?

This is an interesting video commissioned by modern day London Councils to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the current London Borough arrangements. Before 1965 Newham had separate West Ham and East Ham Councils.

There has been massive changes in London during the past 50 years, so it is worth exploring whether or not there should be another review.

Maybe we need fewer than 33 boroughs in London and we should merge or perhaps existing structures are too big and we should decentralise? Or should we "pick and mix" and decide local government structures according to what makes sense. Some functions merged and others decentralised?

We should also look at tackling the democratic deficit in local government and the poor turnout in elections and participation.

I will be posting further on this (after May 7th).

Why is there no sense of crisis about the future of the LGPS?

The AMNT yesterday sent in a response (below) to the Government (DCLG) consultation on proposed new regulations on how to run the new look Local Government Pension scheme (LGPS).

The LGPS is collectively the biggest funded Pension scheme in the UK and the 5th largest in the world. There are at least 4.6 million people in the UK who are members of the £180 billion LGPS. Yet hardly anyone seems to understand that unless we are able to control costs and increase return then its entire future is in doubt.

"AMNT comments on LGPS consultation on amended Governance Regulations"

Introduction

The Association of Member Nominated Trustees is an organisation run by and for member‑nominated trustees, representatives and directors of pension schemes, both defined benefit and defined contribution, in both the public and private sector. Established in 2010, the Association now has about 350 members from occupational pension schemes with collective assets of approximately £250 billion.

These pension schemes range in size from £5 million to around £40 billion; they include defined benefit schemes that are fully open and those that are closed to further accrual or closed to new members. 

The AMNT membership includes LGPS member nominated representatives or observers. 

General Comments

Firstly, the AMNT wish to express their concern and disappointment that the government has not followed the proven private sector model of pension trusteeship with regards to the LGPS. Instead of a single partnership body made up of employer and employee representatives working in cooperation each of the 89 LGPS in England and Wales will have legally separate pension committees and pension boards.

The pension committee will continue to have no meaningful beneficiary representation in law. The only members of this committee that will be allowed to vote on decisions under local government legislation will be Councillors. It is likely that Member nominated representatives will continue to be “allowed” to participate and observe in a minority of LGPS schemes but there will be no legal right for MNTs or any beneficiaries to play a full role in the running of the scheme in the same way that their counterparts do so in the private sector.

The pension board will have some form of beneficiary representation but it is entirely unclear how these “employee” members will be selected or how its lawful role to "advise and assist" in the running of the scheme will actually happen in practice.

This appears to be confusing and unnecessary duplication. Instead of the usual co-operative approach found in the private sector trustee model, there may be conflict and disagreement between pension committee and boards. It is also unclear how such disputes and conflicts between a committee and board will be managed.

We do not understand why there is a requirement for board members to have prior experience. This is not expected of councillors on pension committees. Why is this different from the private sector where new trustees are given 6 months to gain relevant training and experience?

More detailed regulation is also needed with regard to ensuring that employee members of pension boards get sufficient time off to carry out their functions and that neither they nor their employers suffer  a financial detriment.

There is a clear democratic deficit compared to private sector pension funds. Why don't those who actual pay their own money into the pension have effective representation? Why should public pension funds be less democratic than private sector funds? The whole point of beneficiary representation is that you are more likely to get accountability and good governance since it is their money and their future pension at risk.

While in the past there was an argument that beneficiaries did not bear any direct financial risk this is now not the case. Under Treasury rules if the aggregate employer contribution for future accrual exceeds the cap of 13% then LGPS employees face benefits being reduced or contributions being raised. This could mean that more people would leave the scheme because it had become unaffordable and therefore risk the future sustainability of the entire LGPS.

It is therefore imperative that the LGPS is run as effectively and efficiently as possible. Costs must be controlled and return maximised. However, since the proposed scheme regulations are permissive, they do not comply in our view with best governance practice found in the private sector. How are funds that are being run inefficiently and poorly governed to be stopped from dragging down by poor returns the whole LGPS and breaking the employer cap?

We understand that a number of LGPS are already predicting that they will breach the 13% (19.5% with employee contributions) cost cap. When you think of the consequences if this happens then there should be a sense of crisis about the proposed arrangements and the overriding need to have accountability and good governance.

We appreciate that pension boards have to be in place by 1 April 2015 and some of the issues that we raise are the result of the Public Service Pension Act. However, there is a growing body of evidence that the proposed arrangements are contrary to European law and directives with regard to legal separation of the fund from the employer. This could mean further significant change.

Gordon saves the Union, Scotland says No...time now to move on

To be clear I am so relieved with the result today, yet people I know and respect are utterly desolate and devastated.  Democracy is noble and uplifting but it also can be very cruel and personal.

I don't care what the vile trolls of both camps think or say but I do think that everyone now needs to move on and do what is best for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

While my preferred option at this moment would be a Federal Britain of democratic regions and nations, I want us all to decide it by "the Scottish way" - that is - openly argue and passionately debate our common future.  England and Wales please note!

What happens if you don't vote?

I think that we should never forget what will happen if you don't vote.
"Make sure you have YOUR say in London's future. Register to vote or for a Postal Vote at www.aboutmyvote.co.uk. Put the date 22 May in your diary.