Bad news folks. The Making the Difference bid failed :(

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 30, 2008 at 16:32

First of all, thank you for your prompt return to answer. I recall that a few weeks back you promised to give us your reasons as to why you disagreed with local campaigners about betting shops but a football match intervened and we never discovered what your objections were. I expect you will explain now.
I am not sure in what sense you use the word 'political'. If you are expressing the view that people are showing allegiance to one political party than I fear I cannot agree with you. If you are using it because people here seek to influence the way their community develops , then I would suggest that being 'political' is a badge I would happily wear.
The point about this website is that if you should wish to open a debate that promoted the unrestrained clustering of Betting shops on Green Lanes you would be allowed to do so and you should do so if that is how you feel. You are free to promote your viewpoint on here (provided it falls within the guidelines that you agreed to when you signed up) although you must expect others to disagree with you, as you have disagreed with us. It is a shame if people who hold opposing views to the ones they read do not express them in open forum and allow for robust debate on the subject.
That we agree on the Haringey People shows that we do have viewpoints in common but I am not against the Making the Difference scheme as it is a good way for local people to get small pots of money for things they want to do. We cannot always be sure that they will work but there should always be effort to effect change for the better.
At a national level, the current government is very keen on promoting bottom up community initaitives that help to influence the way an area develops and hand decision making over to the people that have to live with that decision. This site is an excellent way to put people, who otherwise might not be able to get involved, in touch to discuss both problems and solutions but there will be others who show no interest, as is their right, and as is the way in any community. The council will soon have a 'duty to involve' and we felt that supporting a forum like this would have helped them to perhaps fulfil a small part of that statutory obligation. They are as free as you and I to engage, debate and explain on this site and some of them do, often leading to fruitful debate.
On the subject of funding, are you suggesting that it should receive no money from the council or none from anyone? If the latter, I would disagree, the site is mutifunctional and can be used by local people to promote their events, art, music, ideas,...make friends, form common interest groups and share local knowledge of how to get things done. I would suggest that this is what many people use it for and that the 'political dimension' is merely part of it, so if you have a spare couple of quid, come to the Salisbury next drinks and pop it in the tin (but only if you want to:))

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bartolus on May 30, 2008 at 16:59

Regarding the "politics" of this website. As you can see from my post above I did not claim that this website supports any particular party as such, but was geared towards influencing council decisions regarding planning permission, licensing etc. Therefore it is political, and shouldn't receive any public money from my point of view. I don't like paying tax but I dislike it even more when my tax contributions are, in my view, wasted.

I agree with you in most other matters. Debate is healthy, and I am fully in support of it. I also appreciate this website being available. I appreciate what it does, connecting residents of Harringay. But I don't expect my taxes to pay for it.

I don't expect the government to solve my problems.

Regarding the betting shop issues, I'm not "pro" betting shop. I just don't see it as my place to tell someone who is interested in purchasing/leasing private property what they can and can't do with it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 30, 2008 at 17:48

Obviously we must agree to differ on the subject of tax and how it is spent. Since you do not wish your cash to be handed over to this site via the tax system, I trust you will feel that you can show your direct appreciation by clicking on the PayPal button above.

I do not expect the government to solve my problems either (unless they are ones that they have caused through passing poor legislation or making poor decisions) and, if you read the post above, nor do the government. They support local level, resident led, local solutions and intiatives that help to enhance the community and solve their problems, with the thinking that those who live with a problem daily are best placed to offer solutions. This seems like a very sensible way to approach things.
At times, a community may clash with commercial interests when issues of community sustainability and diversity of amenities are at stake. Where the commercial property is successful despite opposition, the residents may still seek to come to agreement about its operation that will be mutually beneficial.
I cannot agree with you that private property is not the business of the community, especially when it attracts anti social or even criminal behaviour. An recent example that springs to mind would be a private property operating as a business in my street which was involved in trafficking women and keeping them against their will. Crime figures from existing bookies on the street are pretty high, therefore, I think, it is the business of local residents whose lives are being affected by their presence to have a say in what happens in them and whether more should be permitted. But that is my opinion, and only mine, and may not reflect the views of the 600+ other members of this site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Van Howell on June 3, 2008 at 13:29

Let's put this in perspective.

The lack of built-in reliable funding kills some community groups, since individuals who take the initiative can't pour in their own time and money forever.

The emphasis on fund-raising that's required to pay salaries (among other costs) kills other non-profit groups. After a while, members come to be regarded as sources of revenue, whose role is to follow the paid leaders. (The big environmental groups in the US, for instance, send out junk mail that insults the intelligence of the recipients, and their so-called members are rarely even invited to engage in any activity other than writing cheques.)

But what's deadliest of all is government funding. If the application had been successful, the priority would now become getting funding renewed next year, and the year after that. This changes the character of a community group but it happens so slowly and so subtly that by the time you notice it, it's way too late to do anything about it. The fire goes out, and can't be rekindled. Even if it's a gentle, safe little flame, like we have here, it goes out. Keeping politicians happy is not what grassroots groups should be doing. If they do it successfully, they fail miserably as grassroots groups. I'm not saying grassroots authenticity requires being at war with politicians; if they're good ones, we can be best friends. But once money changes hand, it changes the nature of a relationship, in politics as in sex.

So the denial of this application, unfortunate as it seems at the moment, is a very good thing. Now the question is how to bring in enough money to keep going.

I think local advertising is probably the best bet — and that could include little ads for services members offer to each other. Ads from elsewhere would be fine too, as long as they're not obnoxious. How this could be organised is the subject for another discussion, but off-hand I'd suggest offering advertising space to dues-paying members, with more space for more dues; members that don't want to pay would still be full members in every other way. Anyone who wants ad space without a membership (because they don't live here, mainly) would pay a whole lot more for it. Collecting and keeping track of dues would be a hell of a lot easier than chasing up ad payments and renewing contracts and all that. People who need help designing ads could either use a standard template or pay a fee to have it done for them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on June 3, 2008 at 14:50

Interesting post VH. I agree with you as far as sustainability is concerned. However, in my view, if funding is seen as start-up funding, it's not neccessarily a bad thing and it doesn't inevitabilty mean sunscribing to the funders beliefs not submitting to any conditions. I believe that any public funding should look ahead of the initial outlay and require plans for longer term sustainabilty of a project as a precondition to grant of fund.

Interesting take on options for advertsing too.

You sound like you sepak from experience in this. Is that right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on May 30, 2008 at 18:03

" I just don't see it as my place to tell someone who is interested in purchasing/leasing private property what they can and can't do with it."

So, is it a fair step from that statement Bartolus to assume that you disagree with the very concept of planning & licensing laws? Or do I go too far?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by empyrean_aisles on May 30, 2008 at 18:05

Liz has said a lot of the things I also feel more eloquently than I could, so I won't take them up again.

Instead, let me ask Bartolus this: If this website is too 'politicised', then what would a website look like that *would* be worth spending public money on?

Would it be a space where people were not allowed to have opinions? Would we not be able to question anything the council is doing, or plan to do? What about if we had a discussion about something that the council subsequently became involved in - would that make it politicised?! The distinction between the 'political' and everyday life does not really seem to be a tenable one.

The public money for the Making the Difference awards had already been set aside for resident-led initiatives. In the past, there have been dog shows, dances for the elderly and the repair of a school bell. Now, I don't own a dog, I'm not elderly and I don't attend or have a child who attends the school in question, but I don't begrudge the people who benefited from those schemes. This website, however, *is* open to anyone who cares to join it. In that sense it seems one of the least biased things to which the Making the Difference money could be put. In fact, I don't even think joining is required - you can lurk invisibly and pick up most of the information you might need that way. In fact if the people behind the betting shops wanted to, they could join up and chime in on the discussions too, if they wanted to (but they don't, as their concern is not the effect on the local community but rather the making of money). That's why the accusation of bias is such a puzzling one. The most vocal members of this site may share opinions but they don't control the airwaves. As this thread itself makes abundantly clear.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anette on September 13, 2010 at 13:27

I'm not "pro" betting shop. I just don't see it as my place to tell someone who is interested in purchasing/leasing private property what they can and can't do with it.

so If I bought the property next to your home and got a licensed strip-club / late night bar in there, you honestly would not care? I find that hard to believe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anette on May 31, 2008 at 20:04

I see it as my place to tell people who purchase private property what they can and can't do with it if what they decide to do or not do interferes with my quality of life. I have posted lots of examples of that in other posts.

What is wrong with trying to attract funding for local initiatives? My tax money is going towards plenty of things I disagree with, I'd be happy if some of it went towards something I actually approve of.

Liz and empyrean_aisles have said it all, really.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on September 12, 2010 at 12:33

Strange these old posts you come across.

I'm sure the situation with this has changed now since, having learned a couple of years ago that the Council had given money to help set up a site for Crouch End traders (About the same time they turned Liz's bid down), I then helped Harringay traders get a similar funding.

So I'm sure the next time someone in the borough wants to set up a local website.............I mean they wouldn't just be helping traders would they?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rachel Fisher on September 12, 2010 at 15:40

Funnily enough Hugh, I started reading this not realising when the posts had happened and I kept thinking 'wow, this is a real kick in the teeth for the Big Society'.

It seems to me that this site is a model of what the Cabinet Office and Big Society Network are seeking to achieve and promote more of across the country.

I wonder what Haringey's position on funding the site would be now...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on September 12, 2010 at 16:40

Then there's that slightly odd InTottenham site, subsidised by free labour from an LBH worker.

I have dug up some more info on that site, will post it later but right now I'm off to the Thames Festival to get my taxpayer's ££ worth.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page