Second attempt to oust council leader fails
A council leader has survived a second attempt to oust her in as many years.
Labour's Arooj Shah, leader of a minority administration on Oldham Council, was saved when an independent group stepped in to outnumber others who had banded together to try to overthrow the leadership.
Shah said the council needs to move on from the "distraction" of "childish games" and "identity politics".
Kamran Ghafood, who launched the failed takeover, has been approached for comment.
Ghafood, who leads the Oldham Group, attempted to unit opposition groups but failed when 31 out of 58 voted against his leadership bid.
The Failsworth Independents stepped in to give Shah the numbers she needed to survive.
Shah told BBC Radio Manchester: "We are doing some important stuff and we're focusing on regeneration - what we don't need is distractions."
She said the council wanted to "focus on serving the residents", adding: "What I am hoping is that they end these childish games, and that the vote has drawn a line in the sand."
Shah said she hoped her opponents would "realise there are serious people in that chamber who just want to crack on with their job".
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Manchester on Sounds and follow BBC Manchester on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Labour narrowly retain control of Oldham Council
Abuse made me more determined, council leader says
Oldham Council
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The five considerable problems with the chancellor's U-turn on winter fuel payments
There are considerable problems with the winter fuel payment U-turn, but perhaps the political argument in favour outweighs them all? First, Rachel Reeves has executed without working out how to pay for it. This, for an iron chancellor, is a wound that opponents won't let her forget. A summer of speculation about tax rises is not a summer anyone looks forward to. Politics latest: Second, the fig leaf that she and Treasury ministers are using is an improvement in economic conditions. If you were being polite, you'd say this is contested. The OBR halved growth this year and the OECD downgraded UK forecasts, albeit only by a little, last week. The claim that interest rates are coming down ignores that their descent is slower because of government decisions of the last six months. Third, the question immediately becomes, what next? Why not personal independent payments (PIP) and the two-child benefit cap? At this stage, it would feel like a climbdown if they did not back down over those. But then, what will the markets - already policing this closely - make of it, and could they punish the government? Fourth, this is aggravating divisions in the Parliamentary Labour Party: the soft left Compass group and ministers like Torsten Bell pushing bigger spending arguments. Those MPs in Tory-facing seats who rely on arguments that Labour can be trusted with the public finances are this has created a firm division between No 10 (the PM) and No 11 (the Chancellor). No 10 is now conscious that it does not have enough independent advice about the market reaction to economic policies and is seeking to correct. Others, I am told, are just critical of the chancellor's U-turn - for she wobbled first. Read more: Given the litany of arguments against, why has it happened? Because the hope is this maxi U-turn lances the boil, removes a significant source of pensioners' anger and brings back Labour voters, a price they calculate worth paying, whatever the fiscal cost. We wait to see who is right.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Temporary congestion charge considered for city
Car drivers could be forced to pay a £5 temporary congestion charge to access a city centre. Oxfordshire County Council said it was considering setting up a two-year scheme in Oxford from the autumn. It said action was needed due to traffic issues caused by the long-term closure of Botley Road for works. However, Oxford City Council leader Susan Brown said the proposal would "allow people who can afford to do so to buy access to our streets". Paying the £5 charge, which would only apply to cars, would allow drivers to go through the six charge locations until the end of the day. Permits would be available for carers, traders, blue badge holders and those commuting to or living in a central area of the city. The county council said action was needed because of delays to a planned trial of traffic filters, which cannot be introduced until Botley Road is reopened. The route is currently shut because of overrunning works at Oxford Station and the railway bridge, which are now not due to finish until August next year. The charging points for the congestion zone would be in the same places as the planned traffic filters: Hythe Bridge Street St Cross Road St Clement's Street Thames Street Marston Ferry Road Hollow Way Andrew Gant, in charge of transport for the Liberal Democrat-run county council, said: "We urgently need to see improvements to travel around the city, better bus services and less traffic overall, to help people get around. "We must take action for our residents, businesses and visitors while Botley Road remains closed." However, Oxford City Council said there has been no previous consultation on the plan. Labour leader Susan Brown said: "Yet again the city is being done to rather than engaged with in preparing transport proposals. "We need a full review of transport policies with a view to tackling congestion in our city. This is something a Greater Oxford Council would do." Campaign group Cyclox welcomed the proposals, saying Oxford's congestion had "reached crisis point". "We can't leave things as they are; if nothing is done the city will grind to a halt under the weight of car traffic," it said. "We cannot build more roads to magic congestion away." Previously Oxford Bus Group warned that congestion was at "emergency levels". The proposals will be discussed by the council's cabinet on 17 June and, if approved, a six-week public consultation would start later this month. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram. City traffic filters postponed by Botley Road delay Call for city's traffic filter plans to be scrapped Council urged for 'Plan B' to tackle congestion Oxfordshire County Council
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
'Spurious' claims about the potential impact on nature from Labour's planning reforms seek to undermine its proposals, a minister has said, as he defended overriding environmental protections. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
