LBWF councillors through the prism of their register of interest forms

The LBWF councillor code of conduct requires each member to answer questions on a register of interest form at the beginning of their term of office, and then update as necessary, with the results being published on the authority’s website.

In 2012, the Waltham Forest Guardian reported that councillors were finding this requirement challenging. Some had missed out crucial details, with, for example, the Leader, Chris Robbins, neglecting to mention his family home. Others – incredibly – overlooked their party membership. A few had simply failed to keep their forms up to date. The full story is here:

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/9527377.WALTHAM_FOREST__Concern_over_councillors__register_of_interests/

Today, the form used is shorter and simpler. Some highly pertinent questions (for example, those relating to membership of outside organisations) have been quietly dropped. Altogether, this makes for a more anodyne read, though one that nevertheless is certainly not devoid of interest.

The table below summarises how councillors have answered two central questions – those that deal with paid employment, on the one hand, and ownership of ‘land’ – in reality, virtually always, property – on the other.

Before looking at this material in detail, a few words of warning. The register provides a snapshot – it illuminates the present, but says little or nothing about the past. Second, some councillors are permitted to withhold information because it is judged sensitive. Third, the focus as regards land/property is exclusively on Waltham Forest. Councillors may (and certainly do) own second homes, and rent out houses and flats in other locations, but they are not required to say so. Finally, the information supplied varies in character and scope, with councillors to some extent choosing how much, or how little, to reveal. For example, while Cllr. Pye clearly lists her part-time positions in some detail, presumably hoping to impress, Cllr. Siggers merely tells us he is ‘self-employed’.

What then do the forms indicate? As regards Conservative councillors, there are few surprises. Almost all are homeowners, and if they work, tend to be in comparatively well-paid jobs. The impression is of solidity and relative affluence

By contrast, what emerges about Labour is somewhat unexpected. The party was founded to represent the manual working classes. It still makes great play of its concern for the poor. But in Waltham Forest Town Hall, right now, Labour seems  to be, if anything, the embodiment of the comfortable middle. On the ‘land’ ownership question, five Labour councillors have withheld information. But of the 39 who have answered, 28 or just over two thirds, are homeowners, compared to the local average in the wider population of 50 per cent; while more surprisingly still, nine, no less than a fifth, own at least one further property in the borough.

The data on employment tell a similar story. Seventeen of Labour’s 44 councillors do not have a paid job, that is, they are either retired or subsisting on some other source of income. But of those that do earn, there is not a manual or unskilled worker in sight. Seven are employed in statutory or voluntary care of one kind or another; the same number do white collar work for the Labour Party, the trade unions, or neighbouring councils; five are in business; four are in the professions; and three rent out property.

Does any of this matter? We live at a time when there is constant talk about the importance of diversity. Yet here we have a situation where no employed councillor is working in a blue collar occupation. That surely must give pause for thought.

Under the leadership of first Cllr. Loakes, and then Cllr. Robbins, LBWF’s prime concern seems to have been holding down council tax, and efficiently dealing with bread and butter issues like emptying the bins.

In comparison, though social justice has been mentioned from time to time in Town Hall debates, it rarely seems to have been given operational priority. Indeed, as postings on this blog have shown, programmes which could have transformed lives in poorer wards – the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the Better Neighbourhood Initiative, and Worknet, to name but three – have largely failed precisely because lack of council commitment and input.

Is it too fanciful to suppose that if there had been greater representation amongst councillors of those at the sharp end, this imbalance in priorities might have been considerably less pronounced?

I leave the reader to decide.