Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Council preparing to abolish Area Committees and Area Forums
WITHIN a week of the election, the Council's Standards Committee is to consider a report authorised by the Chief Executive, with a recommendation that the Committee recommend to Full Council, that they approve the abolition of area committees and area forums. The Report is Agenda Item # five, here.
Tags for Forum Posts: Abolish, Area Committee, Area Forum, abolition
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Area forums may not be brilliantly successful, they do not reach out to the non-engaged, but at least they are a way of forcing a sliver of accountability into the system more than once every five years. They could be made much more democratic by allowing agenda items to come from the floor, even tabled in advance of the meeting, instead of the rigid top-down agenda that we all have to obey.
This safe-seats Council is notorious for its bodged attempts at consultation. They know it, we know it. Taking out one of the meeting places between them and us would be a sad demonstration of their contempt for those who keep them in place. I see the major cost concern is the £55k in allowances to committee chairs, on top of their Councillor allowances. Sure, meetings take planning and organising, but twelve hours a year times seven people costs this much?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
As the money saved is pretty small I think the main issue is whether the Area Forums did what they were set up to do. I like the proposal to establish wards budgets but the proof of how effective they might be will be how much they are allocated and how the decisions are made on what to spend the money on. The report says there will be more detail on this in June so could ward councillors keep an eye on this and share the thinking on this site?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Following the link you gave, Clive, I also saw that our beloved Tribunes of the People propose to vote one another modest increases in their annual allowances. With the biggest increases going to the Leader and her place-people. (Or maybe they've done it already at the Council meeting?)
As we all know, there is no alternative to slashing frontline services for the most vulnerable residents of Haringey. This was condescendingly explained by Cllr Peter somebody-or-other who instructed everyone to "Get Real" at the Budget making meeting. So in line with Haringey's local policy of rewarding "the few" and not wasting time or money on "the many", the Dear Leader herself seems to be getting the biggest rise - £2,295.
Surely there's a better destination for this dosh? Subsidising a couple of hard-up starchitects or other specially favoured businesses? A trip to Cannes? Or they could invite some fashionable designers to refresh the Council's logo.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Alan the figure you quote stands in marked contrast to the circumstances of those whom the Council levies £125 on top of any unpaid Council tax – in apparent collusion with tame, local, supine Magistrates.
We'll learn soon enough what a High Court Judge thinks of this arrangment.
It seems to me this is the Council's contribution to increasing income inequality. And proof of its commitment to practical steps to enable the already comfortable to become more comfortable ... and for the poor to become poorer. Once, Labour stood as a champion of the poor. But not now and not here, in this Borough.
-
-
Clive, before you raise the flag for equality and fairness, you really do need to explore your own LibDem party's complicity in allowing the Coalition to push ahead with its punitive "welfare" regime, with the bedroom tax, "sanctions" and all the rest.
We both have enormous respect for Rev Paul Nicolson. But he's only one of the numerous thoughtful and principled observers and commentators who have been appalled by the way many of the poorest and most vulnerable people are being (mis)treated. And giving a critique not from an academic or theoretical viewpoint; but because they see it operating at first hand.
Here's just one example - the blogger Kate Belgrave. Have a look at her brief account of a visit to a Job Centre "with an older man who has learning difficulties and who is claiming JSA".
As you know very well, I'm not making a Party political point. For a long time I've said exactly what I think and feel about my fellow Labour Party members - and the Party's policies. The good; the bad; and the utterly repugnant.
I have a tiny hope that after the election large numbers of those elected will realise that business as usual is no longer an option.
Incidentally, for a non-party smile, Charlotte Pell has written another helpful blog, explaining what Party leaders actually mean when they say things like: "I'm very clear"; "It's simple"; and "Let me explain".
-
-
Alan as you know, it was not a Coalition of equals; moreover, the LibDems went into Coalition not for love of Conservative policies (we have our own, actually) but rather, out of a preference for stable government when – five years ago – stable government was urgently needed.
You must be relieved that the "complicity" you speak of, is no more.
Any reservations you may have – about an unbraked, unmoderated Conservative agenda – I'm sure you'll keep to yourself.
-
-
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith
Perhaps it may not have occurred to you, Clive, that Labour got into bed with the Tories in Scotland in the "Better Together" campaign.
-
-
Labour got into bed with the Tories
It was a ménage à trois, as you know Alan!
-
-
Absolutely right, Clive.
The Scots had already ejected all but one Tory MP.
Now they've meted out similar treatment to both Labour & the LibDem former MPs. So don't you think the moral of the story might just be that it's inadvisable for a centrist or left of centre party to get into bed with the Tories? Especially this lot? Because anti-Tory voters may decide to punish you.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
The Lib Dems dilema is that pre-2010 they weren't just left of centre, but left of the Labour Party. The normal course for coalitions in my country is that neighbouring parties make coalitions with each other. Jumping over one party as the LDs did, was sure to cause trouble.
I'd been warning Clive for months, what was going to happen, but he shrugged it all off as me being a 'silly leftie'.
The Labour Party and LibDems could have formed the last government, but it's chances were killed by Gordon Brown's stubborness and Nick Clegg's arrogance. - Now that's a fine mess you've got us into Olli.
-
-
This week (election aftermath) appears to be a good week to bury bad news (with no apology re. the infamous cynical spin-doctor phrase).
The haste is coupled with the pecularity of this abolition to be dealt with this evening by the Standards Committee, a committee that normally deals with complaints against Councillors. It seems that any old Committee will do if you're in a rush.
At least it appears to be open to the public.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
