Londoners are entitled to ask ‘what have they got to hide’ after the majority of Assembly Members voted down a Green Party motion which will have required them to publicise their meetings with lobbyists and other interest groups
In an extraordinary display of anti-democratic and anti-transparency togetherness, the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat members present at the London Assembly yesterday all voted against a motion that would have increased their public accountability.
It was almost as if they all represent the same political party. And that they all have something to hide.
Caroline Russell, the Green Party Assembly Member, had tabled this motion:
“This Assembly is a democratic body that serves Londoners by scrutinising and holding the Mayor and Mayoral advisers to account on the city’s behalf.
“This Assembly notes that Members are elected to champion a huge range of people and causes from across the city’s communities. Members are therefore regularly engaged by stakeholders advocating for particular causes.
“This Assembly believes that the Londoners who place their trust in it have a right to know who is engaging with their representatives.
Voted against transparency: Croydon and Sutton AM Neil Garratt
“This Assembly also notes various office holders, including the London Mayor and Deputy Mayors, already publish records on formal meetings they attend. This is an important means of scrutiny and accountability for the public and demonstrates the healthiness of our democratic institution.
“In line with the practice of the Mayor, this Assembly calls on every Assembly Member to publish a record of the formally scheduled external meetings they undertake in this capacity on a regular basis. The record would only include formally scheduled meetings, detailing who members are meeting, when, and the topic of the meeting, and not informal discussions.
“As with the Mayor’s diaries, the publications will not include entries that are already public such as committee meetings or plenaries, nor entries that contain information which the organisation would not be required to disclose under the Freedom of Information Act or other relevant legal obligations; for example, personal diary entries, details of party political meetings, or information that might endanger the health and safety of AMs or others.
“This Assembly calls on the Chair and Group Leaders to consider how this measure is best added to the Assembly’s appropriate policy documentation.”
And this is how London’s Assembly Members voted:
AGAINST
Voted against transparency: Leonie Cooper AM
Marina Ahmad (Labour)
Emma Best (Conservative)
Andrew Boff (Conservative)
Hina Bokhari (Liberal Democrat)
Anne Clarke (Labour)
Leonie Cooper (Labour)
Unmesh Desai (Labour)
Len Duvall (Labour)
Peter Fortune (Conservative)
Neil Garratt (Conservative)
Krupesh Hirani (Labour)
Joanne McCartney (Labour)
Sem Moema (Labour)
Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
Keith Prince (Conservative)
Nicholas Rogers (Conservative)
Onkar Sahota (Labour)
Sakina Sheikh (Labour)
Four AMs did not take part in the vote: “Lord” Shaun Bailey, Susan Hall and Tony Devenish (all Tories) and Elly Baker (Labour).
FOR
Voted against transparency: LibDem Hina Bokhari
Sian Berry (Green)
Zack Polanski (Green)
Caroline Russell (Green)
London has 25 London Assembly Members. Fourteen AMs are 14 elected by constituency (Tory Neil “Father Jack” Garratt is AM for Croydon and Sutton), while the other 11 are drawn from a list system based on votes cast for their parties. Hence no one has ever actually cast a vote specifically to elect Susan Hall. After all, why would anyone want to do that?
London Assembly Members are each paid a salary of around £60,416.
The London elections in May, to be held at the same time as the London Mayor elections, will serve to elect the Assembly for a new four-year term.
Shocked: Green Party AM Caroline Russell
After seeing her transparency motion voted down by 18 votes to 3, Caroline Russell said: “I simply cannot understand how anyone, particularly elected members, could oppose transparency.
“We work for Londoners – they have the right to know who has our ear.
“By voting against my proposal, the Assembly risks undermining its credibility when the Mayor already does this.
“While I am troubled that so many of my colleagues refused to share information about who they are meeting with our constituents, I will continue to push for these disclosures so this Assembly retains the trust Londoners place in us.”
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content. Our comments policy can be read by clicking here
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: In January 2024, Croydon was named among the country’s rottenest boroughs for a SEVENTH successive year in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine
Disgusted but this shows who to vote for!vote Green
I can’t vote Green because of their weird trans policies. They sacked Shahrar Ali, a former deputy leader, because he said ‘biology is immutable’ and a man cannot be a women. He just won an unfair dismissal case.
I never had you down as a potential Green supporter Chris. Judging from your attention-seeking posts, you’d be more at home in Loser Fox’s Reclaim Party.
Attention seeking? Pot. Kettle. Black?
It tells you about our system of politics that when push comes to shove the three main parties can unite around an issue. That issue is what influences their decision making. They are united in not masking what really makes them come to a decision because they know the real offensive rottenness of it all.
Was the motion badly structured? Is it a case of my gang is bigger and the Greens did not bother to involve others? Was there regulations preventing implementation making it a non starter. Did the Green set up an unworkable motion for the purpose of having everyone vote against is as being unworkable and then gain political capital? Are they going on a fishing expedition?
Well assuming that none of the above political games happened and this was an honest cascade down of a process the Mayor and Deputy follow. Why not? Its public money after all and accountable for it those Assembley members are.
Perhaps we can get the honest answer as to why they all voted against it?
If it was to really prevent wrongfull conduct etc.
Sadly even if every scheduled meeting was open and transparant it would not stop corruption, use of undue and improper influence, or any other nefarious act some politicians are alledged to do and some are caught at. Those actions would just go unscheduled as many are already.
But heres another way – if you feel the Member is not acting in accordance. use this
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/appendix_1_-_guidance_on_making_a_complaint_about_a_gla_members_conduct_feb_2021.pdf.
Or fundamentally vote for someone else at the coming elections. You have a good shortlist to choose from and there are also independents who should really organise into the Independents party and perhaps get one of them on the party list into Town Hall.
I’m a tad disappointed that the above article doesn’t include any attempt to explain why Liberal Democrats (my party, just for transparency), Labour and Conservative Assembly Members opposed this motion. On the face of it, it appears strange, which makes me think I’m missing something.
Yes. You certainly are