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

"Mike Ashley blocks Labour councillor from Sports Direct board meetings after Corbyn row"

Hat tip Laura Onita Telegraph

"Sports Direct tycoon Mike Ashley has blocked a Labour councillor from joining the retailer’s board meetings after a spat with Jeremy Corbyn.

The billionaire wrote to John Gray, who is also the vice-chair of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF), to say that he could no longer attend Sports Direct’s board meeting in December.

It comes after the Labour leader accused Mr Ashley of taking advantage of the UK’s “corrupt system” in a blistering attack on capitalism on Thursday.

Corbyn had labelled Mr Ashley a "bad boss", accused him of not paying staff properly and said he had an exploited workforce.

Sports Direct hit back in the letter to Mr Gray on Friday, saying Mr Corbyn has a "complete lack of understanding" and arguing that many successful retailers had worked their way up from nothing.

The letter, from the retailer’s legal boss Tom Piper, said: “It was disappointing to read in the press yesterday the personal and unfounded attacks against Mr Ashley made by Jeremy Corbyn.”

“In line with Mr Corbyn’s complete lack of understanding of the state of UK retail, he should be reminded that the sector is a huge employer for the nation, and that it is one of the few sectors where there is no glass ceiling.

“Indeed as an example many senior management members of staff at Sports Direct, past and present, started on the shop floor. Thus his views on Mike Ashley and Sports Direct contradict his socialist utopia.”

Mr Ashley, who is Sports Direct’s founder and chief executive, said he would welcome outsiders at board meetings following criticism over working conditions and how the company is run at its annual gathering with shareholders in September.

Mr Gray, who was at the meeting and is also a Labour councillor for the London borough of Newham, wrote to Mr Ashley nine days later to say he would like to take him up on his offer and an agreement was reached.

Responding to Sport's Direct's U-turn, Mr Gray said: "I'm really disappointed. We have made critical but constructive comments about the governance arrangement of Sports Direct over the years, which we believe is unsatisfactory; why the organisation got in trouble over awful labour rights, is it symptom of wider problem; the massive £600m bill; the accountants who walked off.

"I've had engagement with a number of large companies over the years. I happen to be a Labour concillor but in my role as vice-chair, I represent the pension funds. I have never been challenged in that capacity.

"I get it, there is an election and it's a crazy world but our [LAPFF] chair is an independent councillor, so if there's a problem with me, which I don't accept, then what about he asks our chairman to attend?"

But on Friday Sports Direct’s Mr Piper said: “The board cannot, as a matter of good governance, allow an observer to attend board meetings where there is such a clear conflict of interest between the two parties.”

LAPFF represents 80 local authority pension funds with assets of £250bn. Collectively, the organisation represents the retirement plans for 4 million UK citizens.

Sports Direct was criticised by MPs in 2016 for “Victorian” working conditions after an investigation uncovered workers at its Shirebrook warehouse being paid below minimum wage and penalised for taking breaks.

Mr Corbyn promised on Thursday to go after some of Britain’s richest people in a bid to position the Labour Party as being on the side of the “many not the few”.

It came as the Labour leadership appeared to endorse a call to effectively outlaw billionaires.

As well as Mr Ashley, the Labour leader also singled out Crispin Odey, who runs one of the country’s largest hedge funds; media mogul Rupert Murdoch; the Duke of Westminster, a major land owner; and Sir Jim Ratcliffe, boss of energy firm Ineos.

Sir Jim, the Duke and Mr Ashley contribute an estimated £167m to the Exchequer each year.

"Isle of shattered dreams" ("One" Housing Group)

Check out this post by Cllr Marc Francis Tower Hamlets Labour Party on Housing Group blog "Red Brick". One Housing Group is trying to get out of an undertaking it made to residents and the last government to have resident led "governance" on the management Board of its subsidy "Island Homes" in the Isle of Dogs, East London.

This attempt to back track on promises is the sort of thing that gives the whole housing association movement a bad name amongst ordinary residents and politicians from all political parties. Good governance in many parts of the whole so called "not for profit" sector is frankly non-existent. Residents, clients and individual staff have little or no power and many very large organisations are run by self perpetuating oligarchies with no effective accountability or oversight.

While there is still many cases of good practise there is a huge difference between being "consulted" (but - we are going to do it anyway) to being part of the actual management process. You need people on Boards who have a real long term interest in the organisation since they live its homes, work for it, receive its services or are local elected Councillors. They are the ones who can challenge and ask the difficult questions that are needed to be said.

Huge amounts of public money has been spent on investment in these bodies and despite the cuts will continue to be spent on benefits and social care.  Who is making sure that this money is being well spent and that Housing Associations are being properly run? The Housing Regulator is now pretty toothless and will only step in when organisations have already failed and are going to the wall.

Unless Housing Associations get their act together and reform their governance practises and become more democratic and accountable to their stakeholders then they have in my view no long term future. While the Tories will try and turn them into quoted companies (even more of a disaster) I am sure a Labour government will one day have no choice but to get rid of them.

LAPFF Conference 2010: Stewardship Code: Putting it into practice

Tom Powdrill (PIRC) led a panel discussion about putting the Code into practice. David Murphy (NILGOSC), Tony Little (Gartmore) and Iain Richards (AVIVA). The Code came out of the Walker Report and is a response to the financial crisis. Not a fluffy “feel good” report but an attempt to try and prevent a future financial crisis. Can shareholders control companies? If shareholders cannot then look at Ireland were due to voluntary failure there is now a regulatory approach to governance.

David spoke first about his scheme. There are 204 employers, over 80,000 members and £3.6 billion assets. They support the idea that they are asset owners; they are the ultimate owners and should take responsibility for what has gone on in the past. They believe in co-operation and the importance of disclosure. They vote in all markets and report back on investment policy. Be open and transparent.

Tony explained that Gartmore are mainstream investors in 2,500 equities around the world. He was struck by the difference between this report and the UK governance report Cadbury which said this is what good practice looks like and others should aspire to it. The Stewardship Code “horse trades”. This is what you should be doing. Will see what good practice eventually looks like. The EU intervention has been negative rather than positive. They have forced the pace. They want to regulate. His role often is to be candid friend.

Ian said there may be over blown expectations of the Code. It was to resolve the “absentee landlord” problem in the run up to crisis. But there is an issue of resources. They have 7 in his team but this is still limited. Conflicts still exist; there are still misaligned incentives, short term structural problems. There are differences of objectives in engagement. In the UK 13% of shares are owned by pension funds and 13% by insurance funds. But it is only 26% of market. 40% of UK now owned by overseas investors. Concern around the role of the ISS.  An unaccountable organisation who admits looking after its primary audience - US investors. An awkward question is what do fund managers do? They have already signed up to the Stewardship principles. Is it transparent to have such long policy statements? Principle 7 (reporting on what they do) is the most important. There is a poisonous view that all you have to do is delegate everything to fund managers – and job done. This leads to apathy.

Next Q&A. I asked a question about how the new Code will not last be last word on governance and will evolve and change. Panel members have hinted at things that could be done better. What one significant improvement would each of the panel members want to see in any future review?

Tony: it needs to be redrafted and made clearer. The FRC next time should engage more about what is good practice. Iain: that it should be extended across to Europe. Especially with Funds tied to banks. David: he is against further regulation. He is happy with “comply or explain” approach. But it does need to be fleshed out. It’s a bit vague. Not only would he like it extended to Europe but wouldn’t it be nice to have in the US although that is “pie in sky”.

Tom asked does the Code make a RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) less likely. Tony: No but... Ian – more cynical. Nothing much changed. No evidence that in 5 years time the world will have changed. David: We don’t know what will happen next.

The largely negative response to this question supports my own view that the Code (although an welcome improvement) is just sticking plaster and not the root and branch reform that is needed to stop another Fred the Shred.