The residents of this Borough have been paying dearly for the Council’s decisions to pour £300,000 into aid for a failed chicken restaurant, £70,000 for a new Council logo, £406,000 for a failed lettings agency and heaven knows how much in consultancy fees for the (apparently) now-to-be-abandoned HDV.
We will pay even more dearly if £33 million is shelled out for a new Council headquarters.
What we see is:
And I haven’t even mentioned potholes.
There have been some successful pilot projects, but we have no idea as to whether they are being followed up.
The Labour Party’s manifesto makes depressing reading.
We are a great deal clearer and far more practical in what we propose. Full details are in our manifesto which you can see on www.haringeylibdems.org
As a sample, here are some points:
There are many other reasons to vote for us, but perhaps the strongest is that local Lib Dem Councillors always strive to make the Council a means for solving problems instead of being a problem itself. Harringayonline has plenty of comments on how Karen and I were helpful in the past. Matt Cuthbert will be a very effective member of our team.
Labour has run out of ideas. We’re brimming with them. Please let us get to work.
I agree with every word.
In fairness to the Administration a resident has shown me a recent Council Tax demand which does contain the extra sentence referred to above, so it does now appear that the Council has followed up on the pilot.
Many thanks for your considered response David (as always).
My major concern in all policy making is if it is evidence based. The LGA paper largely looks at case studies which are isolated and don’t have the numbers to back them up. For instance one of the case studies says that half a million pounds was saved through a shared service. As local government finances have shrunk by up to 50% in some cases it’s my suspicion that those savings would have had to be found wether a service was shared or not as there was simply not the money to spend. What would be useful is comparing costs and savings in shared services compared to traditional one council services. That kind of evidence is lacking in the LGA paper but is in the Oxford University research which seem to find no significant savings from shared services but plenty of false assumptions and claims about them.
On the issue of a shared Chief Executive, imagine a situation where we shared with say Barnet. In Haringey the senior management team plan and promote in-house provision as the best option for care at home while in Barnet the same people plan and promote an outsourced option. I simply can’t see that happening - or if it did it would just fill the pages of Private Eye with a story for people to shake their heads at.
Thanks again, Michael.
There's obviously a lot more to go into.
Perhaps after the election over a beer? (assuming I'm still worth talking to)
All the best,
You’re always worth talking to David
This comes from the inwardly looking Tory view of the world, the same place as the bedroom tax. Jacob Rees-Mogg has taken this to extremes where he has the equivalent of two modern families but only one wife. At some point we have to agree that you can cover a large portfolio poorly or a small portfolio well...
Do the Lib Dems still support the 'Go Home' vans they introduced when they were in government?
A newspaper article from 2014 casts doubt on 'support' and 'they introduced' - it asserts that within the Home Office
"The low point for relations with the Lib Dems came last summer when the now notorious “go home” vans were sent round areas of high immigration without even informing the resident Lib Dem minister first."
Presumably they weren’t informed about tripling student tuition fees or selling Royal Mail at a loss either.
Addressed your initial factual point.
Royal Mail, don't know.
Student fees, everybody knows!
Does our Chief Executive have so little to do that he could contemplate taking on a second ( or third ) borough ?