Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Council Invites Residents to Choose Where to Make the Cuts
In a consultation launched yesterday under the title "Haringey: where next?"Haringey Coucil is both readying the residents of the borough and inviting them to choose where future cuts should fall.
The web page starts of quite upbeat with an apparently pre- election oriented set of questions:
- What do you love about living in Haringey?
- What issues concern you?
- What would make life even better where you live?
However the text soon makes the message clear:
Since 2010 we’ve changed. In response to Government cuts to our budget, we’ve had to stop offering some services and find cheaper providers for others. With more budget cuts to come, further change is needed if we’re to continue to serve our residents well with less money year after year.
..or clearish, at any rate
But we believe we can continue to make Haringey better by listening to you. We want to do more, but we need to know what improvements you would like to see in your borough. What are the changes that matter most to you?
..or am I just a tad too cynical?
You can respond to the consultation online or attend one of two public meetings:
- Monday 17 March at The Original Gallery, Hornsey Library, Haringey Park, N8 9JA, and
- Wednesday 19 March at Heartlands High School, Station Road, Wood Green N22 7ST
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
>>nothing more that taxpayer-funded Labour Party electioneering
Are you blinded by your own political views, seeing 'reds under the bed' everywhere?
Every council of every political colour in the country has suffered cuts (40% on average). This video does not have a single Labour Party policy in it as far as I can see and could have been made by a Tory borough - it's not about party politics, it's about engagement and in order to engage, you need a wide variety of channels I guess. This is one way - give the Council a break!
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
No, Chris, this really is not being "blinded by ... political views".
There are important and vital issues about how "Consultation" questions are asked and interpreted. Which include the phrasing of questions, coding of answers, and training of the people administering the questions. I'm sure you know a lot of this stuff. So please stop being defensive when Phil K or anyone else raises perfectly justifiable doubts.
I don't claim expertise in his area. But I've read and learned a bit. And enjoyed re-reading a superb little book by Robert Chambers called "Rural Development; Putting the Last First. Among other things he describes the many ways in which researchers (including Prof Chambers himself) miscommunicate with rural people. For every one of his examples I thought: "Ouch!" And wincing, remembered times when I made the same mistakes during my own research. (Many years ago, with members of co-ops and collectives). Also as a councillor when I failed to hear the layers of meaning in something a resident was telling me.
The difference with the Kober Klique is that they hear only what they want to; and set up systems to ensure that's what happens.
Many years ago a Health Visitor friend joked how easy it was to do a quick home visit. A Health Visitor would cheerily ask: "Everything all right, mother?" To which the sign-posted answer is: "Oh, yes."
Haringey's classic "consultation" tool is what Guardian journalist, the late Simon Hoggart called "The Law of the Nonsensical Reverse. They ask people whether they want e.g. Regeneration, more homes, estate renewal, new schools, a new library, a cinema, a greener cleaner, environment etc etc. To which the only sensible answer is: "Yes, please".
What they never ask is: Would you like us to demolish your home, blight your neighbourhood, build twenty storey tower blocks, privatise the schools etc? Or explain that half the options proposed will only happen if the market decides it can make a profit.
The results of this fake consultation are then presented, either with very deep stupidity, breathtaking gullibility, or utter dishonesty (take your pick) as: "We asked you and you told us".
You want Phil and me to "give the Council a break". Robert Chambers is now 82 years old. He doesn't give international development workers a break. Nor his academic colleagues. And I don't and won't give local development workers a break, either. Nor my Labour colleagues. Especially those who've failed so completely and dismally over the past five years. And neither should you.
Chambers latest book is called Provocations for Development. It's a collection of mostly short pieces to be dipped into. Including some of his trademark little rhymes and doggerel. I read this and immediately thought of many of the reports written for the Council and the vast emptiness of the burble spouted by many of our own dear Haringey politicians.
First always make your prose obscure
Never , never pure.
The way to get the upper hand
is say what none can understand
Critics can never vent their spite
if they can't fathom what you write.
You will never get it wrong
if your sentences are long
What you write may make no sense
But lay it on, be doubly dense
People will bolster your pretence
To show their own intelligence.
(* Thanks to the Big Green Bookshop for getting it for me.)
-
-
Alan, I always enjoy your jewels of wisdom but let's stick to the matter in hand:
Does the video contain any party political points?
Is it likely that, say, a Tory borough might have produced a more-or-less identical video?
Ought communications inviting consultation be delivered in various different ways so as to reach the widest range of residents? If so, is a 3min video one of those ways?
-
-
Hi Chris, This is the email I sent to the Chief Executive last week with my detailed reasons for considering this and a second video to be a breach of the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity. I copied my email to Labour, LibDem and independent councillors. In my view, these are propaganda not information videos as they are designed to influence consultation on the so-called "regeneration" plans.
As I wrote, Kober, Goldberg and Strickland are carrying out fake consultations because they're legally required to show they've done so. But they have already decided the outcome. The videos give an artist's impression of what it will look like. If they were planning this damage to your neighbourhood I hope you'd be loudly opposing them.
To: Nick Walkley
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 3:53 PM
Subject: Challenge to the legality of two council vidos under the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority PublicityDear Mr Walkley,
I wish to challenge the legality of two videos posted on YouTube in the last few days and suggest they fail to comply with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ZLkF0MQKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtET9yr0muETo refer specifically to the Code of Practice, I would ask you to rule that there are very strong doubts about these videos being lawful, objective and even-handed. I would ask you to rule that they pay insufficient - or indeed pay no regard whatever - to equality and diversity - absolutely crucial factors across the whole of Haringey and especially in Tottenham. Nor has sufficient care been taken, given that we are now in a pre-election period of heightened sensitivity.
"Any publicity describing the council’s policies and aims should be as objective as possible, concentrating on the facts or explanation or both. Local authorities should not use public funds to mount publicity campaigns whose primary purpose is to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a question of policy."
"Where local authority publicity addresses matters of political controversy it should seek to present the different positions in relation to the issue in question in a fair manner."
- Both quotations from the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity. Communities and Local Government Circular 01/2011. Department for Communities and Local GovernmentBoth videos appear to me to be subtle, but strongly biased and unbalanced sales pitches for particular Party policies - policies which are highly contentious both politically and academically. As well as ethically dubious, as they are aimed at achieving what has been called by Professor Loretta Lees and others: “social cleansing”.
The policies advocated are almost entirely designed to carry out the Stuart Lipton Plan on behalf of the Tory Mayor of London; serving mainly the interests of developers, landlords and large corporate interests. It is a further example of what the writer Naomi Klein calls “The Shock Doctrine”. In this case, using the Tottenham Riot as a justification to further advance development policies for demolition, displacement and gentrification.
In making this judgement I have taken into account the images shown and their locations as much as the text.
Of course, not everyone will entirely agree with my view. I also acknowledge that my view may be thought equally biased and possibly seem just as unbalanced - a bias and a balance tipped in favour of the local residents who I am elected to represent as their councillor. However, while the local rightwing political parties, property developers and others have the right to use their own funds to pay for and issue such propaganda videos, it appears to me that a local authority's public funds should not be used for publicity on one side of these politically charged issues. Not least, at this time with only a few weeks to go before the official start of the local borough election campaigns.
In fact I am seriously concerned at the timing of the release of these videos as well as their content. Even if entirely coincidental, it seems to me that the aim of the videos is both to influence public opinion on these issues, and to secure support for the policies of the current rightwing political administration.
Can I please also ask:
- How much these two videos cost?
- Whether the cost was met from the General Fund or any outside funding?
- Which councillor or councillors authorised this expenditure?
- Which councillor or councillors authorised the timing or the release on YouTube?
Thanks for your help.
Alan Stanton
Tottenham Hale ward councillor
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I said to you on twitter that I got a quote from a friend who does things like this. If he did it professionally in his firm, £40K each. He did however say that they could be done by a guy in his bedroom for £1K each.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Alan - I'm with Chris of this. I really see what the problem with the video is. It struck me as something to try and get people involved I the decision making process which is surely a good thing. Can you be more explicit about the bits you object to.
-
-
Michael as we know, an election is imminent. The Code says (paragraph 33) that:
"Local authorities should pay particular regard to the legislation governing publicity during the period of heightened sensitivity before elections and referendums."
Okay, the code legally restricts publicity after the election has been called. But in my view commonsense suggests we are already in "a period of heightened sensitivity". That's pretty obvious from some of the recent postings on HoL.
Some small things in the video are like a Labour Party leaflet. (And will no doubt reappear in the Party Manifesto.)
But more important, the overall implicit message is that your Council/the Labour Leadership is doing a good job in the face of cuts by the nasty Tories/LibDem Government. Apart from the spurious doing a good job claim, this is true but again belongs in political material paid for by the Party.
Another implicit message is that the Council/the Labour Leadership are the good guys who want to listen to and learn from the people. Yeah, sure. "Always Listening To Our Customers". Maybe you've got the T-shirt?
I suspect that if the LibDems ran the Council and had posted such a video, the opposition would object. So: Do Unto Others/Golden Rule.
Chris Setz hasn't linked to the second video I objected to. But that's clearly an advert for developers and the Council's Tory policies. I disagree with Clive Carter that 'The Haringey People' magazine is Pravda. But I do think the unfettered arrogance of concentrated power has led Claire Kober, Joe Goldberg and their acolytes to overstep the line between propaganda and information. The line is blurred. It needs to be sharper - and enforced.
People shouldn't be taxed to pay for any party's political propaganda. And local council staff shouldn't be putting it out.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillors)
-
-
Assuming that you accept that it is reasonable for the Council to make non-partisan videos on these topics, how different would a non-partisan video be? What would be dropped and what omission corrected? That's what I can't see - that's why it doesn't look like partisan propaganda to me, just good old-fashioned corporate propaganda.
-
-
Oh, ye of such boundless everlasting faith in Haringey Labour Party, Chris.
I think it's extremely difficult to make non-partisan videos about brutal cuts made by the Coalition Government; and the Tory Kober/Strickland plans to hand over the borough to "the Developer Community". Never mind having them posted on YouTube only nine weeks before the borough elections.
What's the problem in pulling them until after the election? Instead commission more videos about fostering; care of the environment, etc (But leave out the Green Flag parks. It's fair enough to boast about that. But for now, in the Manifesto and Party leaflets.
Don't turn Council staff into Party functionaries. It's unfair to them and unfair to Council taxpayers.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
"Developer Community" – when does oxymoron become murder (of the English language) ?!
-
-
When Claire Kober used the phrase when defending the Cannes Jamboree (Cannesboree?) PR disaster in a meeting of Haringey Labour Group.
I wasn't there of course. But I'm told that a fair number of Labour candidates were there as observers. I hope that at least a few of them were wondering whether to laugh or cry.
-
-
-
>>... boundless everlasting faith in Haringey Labour Party
We are where we are, Alan - you work with what you've got. They will not do what I would have them do, but who am I to get my own way?
'no videos on these issues' is hard when Councils all over the country are doing this sort of stuff.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
