Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
"This will not usher in new era of privatisation"
This evening, as Full Council vote in Nick Walkley as the new CEO of Haringey Council, Claire Kober assures residents via Twitter that there is no plan for "a new era of privatisation"
The leader of the council went on to say that it is politicians that set the direction of the council and there are no plans to implement Barnet's agenda here. There were three votes against and one abstention in the vote to ratify Nick Walkley's appointment as the CEO.
Nick Walkley has been at the centre of Barnet Council's controversial EasyCouncil plan but recently stood down citing personal reasons to apply for the role vacated by Kevin Crompton.
Tags for Forum Posts: nick walkley
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David on
-
the scrutiny should not be about total levels of privatisation or investment, it should be about what the council does for its residents in the context of one of the highest council taxes in the country (although this does not form all of the council's income).
Haringey Council has little record of competence. If the new Chief Executive can make it an organisation which at least delivers the services it need to, then he will have done very well. If he can make it do that whilst also cutting council tax, then he needs to leave the job and set up his own business. Those are the criteria against which we should judge him.
PS: I have only ever voted Labour and am not against the public sector at all. I just think it should do what it sets out to do.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
A timely piece in the Guardian, "Thatcher's outsourcing fantasy fails in reality - To date, almost all attempts at large-scale privatisation of local government have proved to be political poison". Some examples of disasters and plain bad deals following privatisation. Let's hope Mr Walkley and the Dear Leader have read it and its appended comments.
An update on Barnet there too : "A nurse working in sheltered housing where wardens have been removed told the Guardian: "I have residents who sit in their nightclothes all day because they cannot afford the alternative. Where is the dignity in this? These same folk who used to love going to a day centre can no longer go as, they tell me, it costs £35 per day and an extra £5 for transport. So now they sit all day, staring at four walls or at the TV. Where have we gone so wrong?" Of course, "at least they're not dead" (c) 2011 Cllr Reith.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks for letting people know about that article, Pam. And for adding your own view to the Guardian's comment thread. It's important that the Clairites are aware that there's an opposition out there. But of course they are unlikely to budge. They may have failed to offer effective leadership in Haringey but they've succeeded in gathering power and influence; dispensing patronage; and partly hollowing-out the local Labour Party.
In your Guardian comment you told Claire Kober: "we are watching".
When Mr Walkley joins Haringey in December, the task is more than watching. As I said at the Council meeting, as many people as possible need to learn from and follow the example of the Barnet Bloggers.
In other words, not just give opinions and make assertions. But make fair and balanced judgements based as far as possible on facts; on investigating evidence; and on careful analysis.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Did Cllr. Reith really say, at least they're not dead, in respect of day centre users?
-
-
Yes. It was at a Tottenham Green forum early last year IIRC, re closure of day centres. Someone said that older people would be very miserable, lonely and unfit if day centres closed, and this - 'at least they won't be dead' - was Cllr Reith's reply. There was an audible gasp and then stunned silence. You may find the report in the Journal archives.
-
-
Pam, it's still hard to believe. If true, I find it surprising that anyone would say such a cynical thing of our elderly citizens, but shocking if it was said in public by any elected person, even for a former Communist.
This sets a pretty low bar, even by the standards of our local council. You'd surely have to be a hard person to think along these lines. One imagines this as the kind of realpolitik attitude that obtained in the Soviet Union.
The day centre closures are an indictment of the council. Recently, £1,500,000 was found from nowhere for the One Borough One Future fund. And the propagandist paper (Haringey Pravda) continues as a higher priority than care of our elderly. Plus the municipal manager mega-salaries.
I ask again: what is the purpose of the council? It once had a genuine purpose and that included care of society's most vulnerable.
Is it forgotten?
-
-
Journal report . I misquoted slightly according to their version.
-
-
"Former communist" "Soviet Union" etc. Clive, don't you realise that every time you play the player and not the ball, attacking Lorna Reith for her politics decades ago, you undermine your own substantive arguments? I expect better of you than that.
As you've now read what the Journal reports Lorna Reith saying, you'll see she was making a similar point to your own about the "triage" of Council services. Yes, Lorna could have wrapped it up with some vacuous Koberspeak phrase. But in fact she tried to discuss a painful, vital issue in a truthful, blunt, grown-up way.
(Lorna Reith's fellow Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
“There will be people who will do without, they will be at home and lonely, but actually they won’t die and that’s the kind of decision we’re having to take.
“I don’t like to put it that bluntly, but that’s the sort of decisions we’re looking at.”
Alan I'm glad you noted my triage suggestion, but disappointed that you seek to defend your colleague's disgraceful statement.
I don't know Cllr Reith and its not personal. It not "grown up". It's just shocking.
Though a party allegiance might change, the ruthless sentiments typical of membership of the Vanguard of the Proletariat, appear little changed. I can appreciate why you wouldn't want to acknowledge that hardness. And the belief in propaganda.
The quote is less of a bluntly worded policy, more of a heartless sentiment, reflecting moral bankruptcy.
For my triage suggestion, day-care centres and drop-in centres would be in the "keep" section because they are part of what the council was once about, part of its genuine purpose. Dare I add, part of what the Labour Party was once about, also.
Haringey People, so valued by certain councillors, would be in the "Get Rid Of" section. By prioritising propaganda over the elderly, its a hard decision in the sense of ruthlessness, rather than difficulty.
I could go on, with suggestions for all three elements of triage, but there's not enough room on Hugh's server. It's about selecting priorities.
-
-
Clive, have you seriously not grasped the often horrifying implications of your own medical triage analogy?
And that when our coalition government slashes funding to local councils - though not of course to banks and tax-breaks to millionaires - it explicitly and deliberately reduces the means councils have to pay for the services they provide?
I'm not "defending" the impacts of the Coalition Government's cuts on the most vulnerable people. I am simply saying that it's better for councillors to tell the unpleasant truth about the choices of where those cuts were made.
I accept, by the way, that there were and are ways to save money through efficiency savings. I suggested small ideas myself. Although nothing on the scale needed. But I refuse to pretend we could and can painlessly find cuts with some combination of the magical alchemy variously called "reconfiguration", outsourcing / privatisation; shared services; and other fairy stories for grown-ups.
If you are serious about categorising local authority services, I'd invite you to do some learning and reading around the topic. For example on what is "statutory" and what is not. And reflecting about what affects life and limb. And also to do some common sense thinking about prevention. The stitch-in-time-saving-nine principle. Which applies just as much to nursery education, or health services, for example; as to your motorbike or the roof of your house.
Though it's not so obvious. And may not impact so directly on you personally.
-
-
Alan I accept that there are net cuts to be made, whether we like that or not. But the point I'm making, is that there are still choices to be made.
I note that, while not defending the council's bloated publicity spend, you steadfastly avoid comment on it. There is no statutory duty on councils to publish PR propaganda to the populace. If anything government guidelines encourage this not to happen.
The fat public relations budget is crying out to be cut - and it could have meant more means for care of the elderly.
It's an example of where the council's priorities lie.
-
-
Final point, Clive. I have not "steadfastly avoided comment" on the Council's publicity spend. On the contrary I called for the depoliticianing of Haringey People; poking fun at the endless vanity photos and vacuous quotes from the "leader" and members of her cupboard.
But actually I don't think that all the information the Council puts out is wasted money. And maybe you and your LibDem colleagues wouldn't either - if you weren't all playing silly Punch & Judy games.
For example, I suspect you'd be very unhappy if the Council stopped e.g. putting out planning consultation letters and notices. Or ended leafleting about waste arrangements. Should the council save a few quid by refusing to answer F.o.I.s? It would break the law, of course. How about scrapping fostering ads - especially if you found the numbers of foster parents falling?
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
