Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
A tale of two Council website home-pages
I'VE RECENTLY made visits to the Borough of Sutton in south London, where the Liberal Democrat Party have just won a by-election. The most obvious difference with Haringey is the state of the streets: Sutton's are noticeably cleaner!
However, one difference between the Boroughs can be compared from anywhere in the world: and that is the home pages of the Councils' respective websites. For ease of comparison, I've put them side-by-side and same-size:
Haringey
Sutton
(click to enlarge: un-retouched screen-shot from 30" screen)
Haringey's home page appears bitty and cluttered. Our council tries to force everything into the first view, whereas the Liberal Democrat Council's home page is scrollable. I suggest the services are better laid out in the latter. Sutton's first view also focuses better on the resident-user who wants to report a problem and to get it fixed.
A Borough's home-page is it's face to the world.
Couldn't we do as well as Sutton?
If not, at least better than our present effort?
______________________________
Council home page: Haringey
Council home page: Sutton
_______________________
Councillor and
Liberal Democrat
__________________________________________________________________________________
P.S. Update above to reflect changes 2015-09-21 to Haringey's website (screenshots captured within seconds of each other—click to enlarge).
Tags for Forum Posts: Council, Haringey, Sutton, home page, web page
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
they've also go the ugliest borough logo
No argument there. I understand that Haringey's logo is currently being revamped again (in private) at costs yet to be determined.
If a new logo comes out in a couple of months' time, the "ugliest" borough logo will have lasted just nine years. In contrast to the striking logo dating from 1965, that lasted more than 40 years.
The earlier logo abandoned in 2006-7, possibly in order to weaken the association with the first BBC TV broadcasts from Alexandra Palace, at the time the council were desperate to "sell" it to a former slum landlord.
-
-
Haringey Council has just tweeted that it is looking to improve its website.
They're seeking help from the public; this all sounds positive.
If you have any suggestions as to how to improve the 'design', click here.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
On 24 June 2015 I made a Freedom of Information Act request for a list of the Haringey @50 activities planned to "celebrate" the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Greater London as a local Government entity with 32 boroughs. Including Haringey of course.
Together with the cost of staging different aspects of this completely pointless non-event. I gather it will include wasting money on the design and adoption of a new logo.
Their reply is legally due by no later than Friday 24 July.
I wonder if they'll also be proposing a change in the borough's motto - currently 'Progress with Humanity' - as this has lost all relevance. Prolefeed & Circuses comes to mind.
-
-
Well, what a surprise! My Freedom of Information request to Haringey - due for a reply by 24 July 2015 - has not yet been answered. On 23 July I received a response on the What Do They Know website, explaining that they would now reply before 20 August. The delay is because:
"it requires more time for consideration of the public interest".
Now this seems very strange for several reasons. For one thing, the events I've asked about are not meetings in underground carparks with "Deep Throat". They are open to the public. So what could be the public interest in hiding them?
Second, the cost is not cash to secret agents left in identical suitcases swapped in the lounges of hotels. It's expenditure by a local council which will sometime have to be listed in its public accounts.
Third, some of the events have already happened or are scheduled in the next few weeks. Which could mean either that they're just busking it at the last minute. Or that budgets are set and arrangements are
in place. If the latter, then clearly somebody already has at least a bit of scrap paper with the plans scrawled on the back. Which they could copy and send me without any extra work. So what public interest test there?Lastly, and oddest of all, on the same day they wrote to me -23 July 2015 - they replied to another requester called Pat Knight. (Who I don't know.) They give her or him partial information about the design and cost of the new Council Logo. That reply discloses that:
"a budget of £40,000 has been allocated to explore a change of identity but only approximately half of this has been for development of the visual identity (logo)."
So it is clear that at least part of the budget information is already available. Although it also appears that £20,000 for "exploring" will not cover implementation. Like printing the new cards, notepaper, leaflets; and editing pages on the website etc etc. Plus, I imagine, manufacturing new signs with the new logo and screwing them up all over the place.
On the other hand, sharp-eyed HoL members will have spotted the curious phrase Haringey's "change of identity". Now this may indicate a different scenario. Have the Police have been asked to arrange a new life for the Council under a Witness Protection Programme? So that Haringey can escape from public shame and criticism for money wasting. And instead, slip away and begin afresh with a new identity.
But then, who'd 'ave 'em?
-
-
I hope that there is a genuine reason behind the delay in answering your enquiry, Alan, and I hope that this is not an abuse of the "public interest" test.
Your FoI request seems perfectly reasonable.
In delaying a response by four weeks, the Council lobs an answer comfortably beyond this coming weekend. I note that the Local Authority's Twitter feed said this afternoon,
We're having a massive 50th birthday party on Saturday! Do join us. Details here: http://ow.ly/QbjzC
One has to wonder whose interests are being served by the remarkable delay.
One could also forgive some Haringey residents – who've suffered from the Council's selected cuts – for not joining in celebrations at the "massive" party.
Perhaps the change of identity is from the slogan "Better Haringey" to "Even Better Haringey". The trouble is, this kind of PR re-branding can be expensive as well as vacuous.
CDC
Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Why do some Boroughs correctly use the term '(Royal) Borough of' ? Whilst others add 'Council' to the logo. Surely any Borough is more than just the total of it's council?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I've always thought of the term borough as meaning the geographical place while council means the governance of the borough. I live in the borough of Haringey and pay my council tax to Haringey Council. In that context a royal borough is one that has a royal residence or patronage (or had in places like Tunbridge Wells) within its boundaries. So there is a palace in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea which is governed by K&C council. Or something like that?
-
-
Great news about the new Haringey logo.
It now seems that the rumours of Cllr Goldberg (JoeGo) cancelling this unnecessary expenditure (no-go) were incorrect. It's no longer a dodo.
Instead the new vanity promo is go-go and will be unveiled in under three weeks. Apparently nobo is allowed to see it as there are just too many satirists waiting to take the pogo. Which could spoil the bozo photo.
Even better news! JoeGo's logo will waste a mere £60,000. Poco a poco.
-
-
Latest news: 21 September is the likely date for all-go promo for Cllr Joego's vanity LOGO. £60k down the drain-oh.
Remind Kobo next time it's "no-dough".
-
-
Pam it's conveniently after the Noel Park and Woodside by-elections. So too late for the opposition to distribute a leaflet illustrating the complete waste of public dosh.
Assuming of course that we ever get opposition parties with the wit and skill to kick a ball into an open goal.
-
-
Apologies to anyone coming across this thread.
Earlier this month, I posted above - in good faith - the figure of £60,000 which I'd heard was the cost of the JoeGo Logo. This was incorrect.
The actual cost was £65,936. Plus an additional £20,000 spent on a publicity film. Combined Total £85,936 (Source: Agenda for Cabinet member signing - Cllr Joe Goldberg) - Friday 18 September 2015. Link on Council website: http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=435&...
To follow this thread further please click here.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
