SPECIAL MOTION NO. 3 – HOSPITALITY AND PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT THE “TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT” RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND PROPERTY DEVELOPERS DOING BUSINESS IN THIS BOROUGH
Standing in the names of:
(i) Councillor PJ Murphy
(ii) Councillor Andrew Jones
“The Council notes that its self-confessed “property-developer-friendly” approach has resulted in many controversial land development schemes being opposed by large numbers of Hammersmith and Fulham residents who have attended the Planning Applications Committee and expressed concerns that the Council’s relationship with many developers are “too close for comfort”.
The Council therefore regrets the decision of administration cabinet members and other Conservative councillors to enjoy “gifts and hospitalities” from property developers operating in the Borough. The Council notes that no minutes or records are kept of the conversations that take place during these generous social engagements and that meetings such as these do nothing to dispel residents’
concerns.
Hammersmith and Fulham Council resolves to tighten its protocols and halt councillors from accepting personal gifts and personal hospitality from businesses hoping to profit from decisions they might make or the influence they may be able to bring to bear on decision makers.
Furthermore, the Council agrees that agenda and minutes need to be made of all meetings its councillors, officials and representatives have with businesses, their agents or their lobbyist when discussing issues pertinent to the Borough and those businesses. Those records will be made available for public scrutiny”.
6 thoughts on “One reason why Tory flagship borough was a surprise win for Labour in May 2014?”
Comments are closed.
East Devon Watch 
Even though it would of course be voted down by the Tory majority if such a motion was ever placed before EDDC, it is of course now impossible for independent councillors even to raise such a motion since the recent change to the EDDC constitution gagged them.
LikeLike
P.S. Did this LBH&F motion get passed?
LikeLike
No, because at the time the Tories had a majority. It is one of the things that contributed to their demise at the last local elections in May. Their situation had many similarities to ours except that the developments being planned there were absolutely huge and relied upon demolishing council housing and replacing it with very expensive flats and houses which none of the council tenants would have been able to afford.
It was a very similar situation in Westminster in (I think) the 1990s when Dame Shirley Porter (Leader) and her council attempted to house homeless and poor families (natural Labour at the time) outside the borough and to replace them with upper middle classes who, the majority assumed, would be natural Tory voters. Eventually, there was a Labour Government and (again I think) she was stripped of her title and went to live in Israel from where she was made to pay a massive fine from her personal fortune (she was an heir to the Tesco dynasty).
Ironically, Westminster is now exactly as she had planned – poor people haven’t a hope of living there!
LikeLike
So, pretty much the same – except that with the change of constitution, we cannot hope to even get such a motion raised, much less passed.
You have to wonder whether it was this specific example which prompted the change in constitution in order to avoid the same consequences here.
LikeLike
Just for the record, the Tesco multi-millionairesse and (Tory) Westminster Council Leader, Lady Porter claimed poverty for years, forcing Westminster Council to spend millions chasing her to pay the record fine imposed for manipulating the voters. In the end the Council settled for her paying only a portion of the fine because they couldn’t justify the costs of chasing her for the rest. This is one of the reasons why I won’t purchase goods in Tesco, although I think much of her money has now left that firm.
LikeLike
Also from Wikipedia:
While leader of Westminster City Council she oversaw the “Building Stable Communities” policy, later described as the “homes for votes” scandal and was consequently accused of gerrymandering. The policy was judged illegal by the district auditor, and a surcharge of £27m levied on her in 1996. This was later raised to £42 million with interest and costs. She eventually settled in 2004, paying a full payment of £12.3 million. Kit Malthouse, Deputy Mayor of London, described it as one of the greatest post-war political scandals and said: “The highest court in the land found her guilty of gerrymandering. There isn’t a much worse offence than that in politics. It is definitely up there in the hall of infamy.”. Writing in The Spectator in 2006, author and journalist Leo McKinstry described her as “the high priestess of Tory sleaze,” whose actions helped to “undermine the reputation of the Conservative party in the 1990s and pave the way for the arrival of Tony Blair.”
LikeLike