Brent’s General Election results.
Saturday May 08th 2010, 12:38 pm
Tagged as ,, , , ,

The voters of Brent have returned Lib Dem Sarah Teather with a majority of 1,345, a swing of 11% from Labour, and Labour’s Barry Gardiner with a majority of 8,028, loosing 2.5% of the vote to the Conservatives (+2.2%) and other parties. I was at the count on Thursday night tally marking for the Lib Dems and in-between boxes of ballot papers talking with candidates and journalists about the political economy of Brent as a borough. And still there at 11:30 on Friday morning when the results were announced! I didn’t have the stamina for the Local Election counts though!

Election summary for Constituencies
Constituencies Elected Candidates Elected Party or Parties
Brent Central Sarah Teather Political party colour Liberal Democrats
Brent North Barry Gardiner Political party colour Labour

It was a long and tense night with some low drama at the first validation following the ballot paper mixup in Willesden Green and the re-routing of the Hampstead and Kilburn ballot boxes via Camden. The ballot counters of Brent Council worked really hard, first collating and validating the ballot papers, then counting the ballots cast. Tally Teams from Labour and the Lib Dems jostled politely for space to count the Brent Central ballots as they were sorted, while at the Brent North tables it was Labour and Conservative Teams that rubbed shoulders. By 530am, both Labour and the Lib Dems were looking tense, each thinking their candidate had just clinched victory. As the Harrow Observer report, ‘Labour [believed] Dawn Butler, the former MP for Brent South, [was] two per cent ahead in terms of number of votes, or just one ballot paper in every 50.

Brent North was announced first, with Barry Gardiner warning against Labour “starting a new love affair” with the Lib Dems so soon after being rejected by the electorate, saying he was “deeply distrustful” of the party.

In Sarah Teather’s victory speech she thanked the people of Brent for renewing their trust and faith in her, promising to continue her work as a constituency MP.

Dawn Butler quoted Maya Angelo in her valediction to the assembled: “You may write me down in history, With your bitter, twisted lies, You may trod me in the very dirt, But still, like dust, I’ll rise.”

Does she not recall who was caught out spreading ‘bitter twisted lies’ to the electorate?

Shahrar Ali thanked the Green voters, saying that with the direction of travel for politics there will come more Brighton Pavilion victories in the future.

Click here for all my photos from the night.

Comments Off


Dawn Butler’s hoarding at Unisys, Brentfield
Wednesday May 05th 2010, 1:44 pm
Tagged as ,, , ,

Is back on its legs.

Whatever you do, don’t visit the web address stencilled on the windows of the building, unless you want to book an escort….

Comments Off


Does Dawn know (or care) where Stonebridge is?
Tuesday May 04th 2010, 3:00 pm
Tagged as ,, , , ,

On this mornings electoral communication from the Labour Party, Dawn Butler highlights housing, in particular the investment in Stonebridge and St. Raphael’s Estate where monstrous concrete high rises are being destroyed, replaced with low-density and low-rise housing.

Are Brent Labour sure?

Are Brent Labour sure?

Only that is not Stonebridge. It’s Trellick Tower, 3miles down the road in Ladbroke Grove…..

Stock photography troubles.

The stock photo comes from PhotoEverywhere.

This isn’t the first time Labour have had stock photography issues locally. Remember the 50 extra police on Brent’s streets in Yasmin Qureshi’s materials in 2005 that were photographed in Shepherds Bush?



Dawn Butler hording advertising at Unisys, Brentfield.
Tuesday May 04th 2010, 12:20 pm
Tagged as ,, , , ,

“Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.” Wilson and Kelling, 1982.

A building like this?

The ex-Unisys building on Brentfield has been empty for well over  a decade. In 1997 the owners were granted planning consent to convert the office blocks to a 330-bedroom hotel, add a new penthouse storey on front block facing North Circular Road, a new single-deck car park and new boundary wall. The planning application was renewed in 2002, but nothing has happened on this site while all around what the wrecking ball of progress has flattened on the Stonebridge estatem the Hillside Housing Trust have rebuilt with low-rise low-density modernity.

I was attracted to the Labour posters along the boundary fence and the massive Vote Dawn Butler advertising hoarding, sadly fallen from grace and lying in the mud.

According to the planning conditions attached the the permission granted in 1997, “Prior consent may be required under the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 for the erection of any advertising signs and/or hoardings on the subject site.” So I spoke with Brent Planning, who advised me that An Advertisement means:

  • announcing any local event of a religious, educational, cultural, political, social or recreational character, or
  • relating to any temporary matter in connection with an event or local activity of such a character,  not being an event or activity promoted or carried on for commercial purposes.

And that No advertisement may exceed 0.6 square metre in area. From my measurements it looks like Brent Labour are in breech of the planning regulations.

Here are a few more snaps of the building and the Labour posters.

P1000502

Picture 1 of 6



Labour pay legal costs to Brent Lib Dems
Saturday May 01st 2010, 11:46 am
Tagged as ,, , ,

Brent councillor James Powney laments the threat and use of legal writ to silence debate, tending towards an environment where ‘legitimate freedom of speech could be restricted by self censorship.’

Legal writ has its strength though. When Brent Labour distributed a leaflet with false claims about Sarah Teather, the Brent Leb Dems took appropriate legal measures. In the face of the legal action, Labour have now admitted their story was false and agreed to pay the Lib Dems legal costs.

Dawn Butler, Ann John and other Brent Labour members have all signed a written apology to Sarah Teather.

Sarah Teather does not need to make up claims about Dawn Butler and her expenses. Dawn Butler’s £66,000 expenses claims are a matter of public record.

Comments Off


WB Times ‘Butler told to apologise’
Friday April 23rd 2010, 11:41 pm
Tagged as ,, , , , ,

Brent’s Labour Group formal apology for issuing leaflets with defamatory claims about Sarah Teather is on page 4 of the WB Times this week.

Butler claimed £66,000 in expenses

Dawn Butler apologises to Sarah Teather

Comments Off


Butler issues full apology for Teather expenses smear
Wednesday April 21st 2010, 7:15 pm
Tagged as ,, , ,

LibDem Voice has some news on Brent Centrals dirty politics.

Labour Minister Dawn Butler has issued a legal apology to Sarah Teather for calling her a hypocrite over MPs’ expenses. Butler made the accusation while the running of Sarah Teather’s office was under investigation. The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner later dropped the investigation because there were no grounds to suspect any wrongdoing by Ms Teather.

This issue came up at the MapRA Hustings on Monday night. There was a question from the floor on expenses which had Dawn attempting to justify £66,000 ACL since 2005 for her Wembley second home, when she has another property in Stratford. As we know, Sarah Teather has not claimed the second home / additional costs allowances. Dawn did well and may have carried it, but a follow up question on Brent Labours’ smear campaign and the ficititous complaints to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner about Sarah Teather by someone from Dawn Butlers team made a stench. Sarah announced that she had received a written apology from Dawn – you can download it – and won the ‘clean up dirty expenses’ applause.

Cllr Ann John attempted a last minute clawback… however her proclaiming of a ‘citizens right to know’ sounded hollow, now that we know of the ‘false… improper…wholly untrue….’ nature of what they wanted us to know.