Greenwich Council backs spending £83,000 on political assistants – without saying where cash comes from

Greenwich councillors have voted to spend £83,000 on jobs for political assistants – but without making clear how those roles would be paid for.

The council’s Labour leader, Anthony Okereke, plans to employ a political assistant for his party’s 51 councillors, at a cost of up to £55,600. The Conservatives’ three councillors will get a part-time assistant.

But while Okereke said the money needed to be spent to help the council become efficient, the vote was held as auditors warned about “significant weaknesses” in the council’s finances. The council cut £33 million from its budget in March, with more set to come next year.

There were angry exchanges between Okereke and Matt Hartley, the Conservative leader, before the vote was passed – reminiscent of the personal barbs flung by Okereke’s predecessor Danny Thorpe before he was ousted two years ago.

Political assistants are employed by other London councils, including Lewisham, Southwark and Newham, to carry out research and provide administrative support to groups of councillors. Greenwich, like its neighbours Bexley and Bromley, had not employed them, and some Labour councillors had spoken out against the idea in private.

But Okereke said that key aspects of the council were not “working effectively”. A recent review carried out for the Local Government Association had criticised the way Greenwich was run and said councillors needed more support, and the auditors had endorsed that review.

“Today’s decision is central to ensuring good governance is upheld and the administration’s ambitions are realised for our residents,” he said, promising it would help create “a better council”, once that was “sharper and more able to deliver”.

The council’s deputy head of finance had warned that more savings would need to be made to accommodate the new role, and Hartley laid down a motion calling for the decision to be deferred until those could be outlined. But it was voted down, with Labour saying only that the posts would be “cost neutral” without outlining how.

Hartley called it a “proposal to increase the cost of local politics” and an “egregious lapse of judgement”.

“Passing [the motion] unamended tonight would mean another £83,000 of savings or cuts from somewhere on top of that £33 million having to be made,” he said.

“So the idea that at a time like this, the priority of this Labour  administration is to further increase the cost of local politics, astounds me. It will astound local taxpayers as they become aware of it, and they will become aware of it.”

The angriest exchanges came when Hartley pointed out that Okereke had mentioned employing political assistants in his pitch to be Labour leader two years ago, as reported by The Greenwich Wire at the time. 

“I’m not going to let the leader of the council get away with this idea that he’s only introducing the political assistant role in response to the recent peer challenge,” he said, holding Okereke’s manifesto,  calling it “a very serious matter”  and a ”falsehood”.

Hartley said Okereke was “skirting very close to not being in line with the Nolan principles [of conduct in public life] that we are all signed up to”.

Okereke refused to discuss his leadership pitch accusing Hartley of making accusations “on the basis of hearsay”.

“When you bring matters to this chamber, you make sure it’s correct,” he said. “There are serious consequences for what we place on the public record.”

Hartley said the political assistants were not needed. “I’ve heard the argument on his behalf as this has been discussed around the town hall, that he needs a political assistant because other Labour council leaders in London have one,” he said. “Not good enough, not nearly good enough.

“Why doesn’t he just draw on the skills and experience and talents of his 50 Labour colleagues who are already funded and paid for through the allowances scheme? 

“Instead, he wants to charge the taxpayer more. Again, it’s his answer to everything. A bigger communications team – one of his first decisions as leader – spending on all those glossy videos and consultations. Consultations about consultations, and now taxpayer-funded political advice.”

Creekside Labour councillor Calum O’Byrne Mulligan mocked Hartley’s speech – “good luck with finding the one clip for your social media from that” – adding that he was “shocked at the lack of support” for councillors when he was elected two years ago.

“Let’s be honest, this is not actually a vast amount of money,” he said. “If we look at job adverts on the council website right now, there are 25 at the rate that would be for the part-time opposition assistant and 16 for the full-time role.”

Hartley accused O’Byrne Mulligan of “smirking in the back row”, saying: “£83,000 a year is not a vast amount of money according to Labour councillors And that says it all, about the Labour councilors’ approach to public money. He said he was shocked. Taxpayers will be shocked at that statement.”

But the deputy leader, Averil Lekau, said assistants would help councillors who also had full-time jobs deal with “increasingly complex issues”, while Mariam Lolovar, the health and social care cabinet member, said she believed in “investing in local councils and our local government”.

Lolovar said: “I see the huge impact that councillors in this room can have on people’s lives, and of the huge impact of how hard council officers work to hold that front line in really difficult times.

“We’ve seen 14 years of our public sector just being run into the ground. There’s  huge amounts of work that needs to be done. 

“And I really take issue with is this constant rhetoric about greedy, selfish politicians and vanity projects. It is destructive language to be using.”