Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Harris & Haley Deselected
Councillors Harris and Hayley have been deselected by the St Ann's Labour Party. This means they will not be standing for St Ann's in next year's local elections. Haringey still faces the possibility that one or both of them will be selected for other wards however.
Read more in the Journal......
Read more in the Journal......
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
So Haringey's Environment supremo may be stepping down. Cllr Haley is one of the smoothest council operators but not always the most candid. He is quoted as saying that the parking charges are not a tax. From a narrow, strictly legalistic viewpoint, he is correct.
From every other viewpoint it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the council sees parking charges as a multi-million pound revenue earner. If Mr Haley had been motivated solely by a desire to help parkers and traffic, the CPZ charges would be revenue-neutral, but we all know they are anything but.
Some years ago, Cllr Haley promised to review the extension to the Finsbury Park CPZ. We're still waiting. Mr Haley has probably forgotten a packed Stroud Green Residents Association meeting as has forgotten other similar meetings. But at that meeting, he even described the CPZ extension over a bridge in Oakfield Road as (verbatim quote):
"Silly".
Everyone agrees, so why has nothing been done about it?
At an AA meeting within recent years, in answer to a question as to why a particular CPZ review had not taken place, he said that he had taken the decision to suspend reviews of all CPZs throughout the Borough.
If Brian Haley is stepping down as environment spokesman whoever replaces him probably won't be as smooth. But let us hope that whoever carries on the job does not make promises that they are either unable or unwilling to keep and they do approach parking issues with more candour.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, a small clarification about current Labour councillors who are ’stepping down’.
The Labour Party’s selection process has several stages. These include: approval by the party as a potential candidate; short-listing and then selection by the members in each ward branch. What’s happened so far is that about half Labour’s ward branches have met to select their preferred candidates. Branches don't have to choose the three sitting councillors and some have decided to make changes. As Hugh accurately suggests, it’s possible that other ward branches will select some of these people to stand as candidates. Of course, this includes Brian Haley and Bob Harris.
Some sitting councillors have said they no longer wish to be councillors. These include Harry Lister, Emma Jones and Liz Santry. They are, if you like, “stepping down”. Though personally, I’d prefer an expression such as “bowing out” or simply “quitting”. Being a councillor is not some sort of lofty elevation – even though a few people do get comically puffed-up by the job.
By the way Cllr Haley is not just the “environment spokesman”. Councillors who are in the so-called “cabinet” have legal powers and actually get to make policy and decisions.
-
-
Alan I'm happy to accept all your clarifications.
Even now Cllr Haley might still roll back the CPZ extension over the Oakfield Road railway bridge. Such a parting gesture, before he bows out or departs, would probably be appreciated by all locals and would indicate he hadn't forgotten about local concerns.
Do you have any views about whether parking charges are a tax and any views on the need to review CPZs, in Haringey, I wonder?!
.
-
-
Thanks, Clive. Unless the law has recently changed, parking charges cannot be a tax. My understanding is that a local authority’s parking schemes must be self-financing.
In other words, income received is offset against the costs of implementing, running and enforcing parking restrictions across the Borough. Any surplus from the income received from Controlled Parking Zones and the issue of penalty charge notices (PCNs or fines) is ‘ring fenced’. It can only be spent on parking or transport related schemes.
Cllr Ray Dodds and I have consistently argued for this approach in Haringey and my views are on the record – including on my public Flickr pages - an example here.
The aim of parking fines should be compliance. If across the country, motorists are paying millions in fines, then the policies are failing. (Just as they would be if, say, there was a consistently high level of fines for drunk driving.) Success means getting as close as possible to zero fines - because people no longer break the speed limit; nor park where they shouldn't; drive in bus lanes etc.
In practice, of course, local authorities across the UK under the control of all the major parties make enormous amounts of income from parking fines and they assume this as part of their base budgets.
Clive, I can’t shed any light on the reasons for Cllr Haley’s actions or inaction. He has not sent a personal reply to any of my emails for several years. But if you have any helpful ideas, I suggest you write to him directly. Maybe you'll have better luck.
-
-
Alan I accept you cannot speak for Cllr. Haley and his failure to review CPZs, especially the part of one that he himself described as "silly".
Local authorities' parking schemes go far beyond self-financing.
I conceded that parking charges are literally, not a tax. But in their effect – and I include costs of subscribing to a CPZ scheme as well as fines – the council relies on this income in the same way as they rely on council tax. There is always a risk that people will start obeying the law, which is what I think you allude to. Is this wise?
I have heard before the argument that surplus revenue raised is "ring-fenced" and cannot be spent on anything other than parking or transport issues. Is this completely honest? It sounds disciplined ... until one realises that if the authority was spending money before on these areas and would otherwise be spending money in these areas, then there is accounting sleight-of-hand going on. Does not TfL make large contributions to establishing CPZs?
If say, a million pounds is raised from Council Profit Zones, can it not then displace a million pounds that can be freed up and spent in the same way as any other tax revenue? i.e. once the money comes to the council, is there not a complete equivalence to ordinary taxation receipts?
If the Decent Homes budget (for kitchen and bathroom repairs in council blocks) can be raided for millions to pay for ultra-expensive council television aerial systems, the accounting trick of substituting CPZ revenue for tax revenue, would be small beer!
Let us put aside the council's coming to rely on this income, which is bit like the Exchequer's addiction to tobacco taxes. If the aim of CPZs is compliance and if the policy is failing, what other measures can or should be taken?
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
As I understand it, monies from parking fines MUST be spent on running and improving parking arrangements - including paying parking attendants, running pounds obviously.
But Harringey boasts on lampost banners that (at least some ) income from parking fines is spent on educating children in road sense. While laudable, is this not illegal ?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
OK guys - time - feel free to start a CPZ thread, but let's not turn discussion into a CPZ one. Thanks.
-
-
I don't know Cllr. Harris but Brian Haley is famous in the Borough for being the parking supremo and for his parking initiatives. If a senior councillor (and member of the Executive) is deselected, one is tempted to ask why? Could it be purely local Ward matters ... or has it to do with the content of his portfolio in The Cabinet?
If Brian is reading this, please can he do at least one review of the three-letter acronym that I mentioned earlier!
.
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
He does have CPZ in his own Road. It's Atterbury (the one between Woollaston and Wigthman). That much I know.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Hayley deselected? The Mills of St Ann's grind slow but they grind exceeding fine.
I'll miss Brian 'n' Bob, if for different reasons.
With Bob's earnestness, there always seemed some hope of keeping over-ambitious youth at bay.
And of course Brian gave me his personal promise that Wightman Road's pavements (Effingham-Lothair S.) would be resurfaced this year. I thought Brian was going to do the job personally. But Brian was always a very promising lad.
-
-
OMG! Is Brian going to stand for his 'ward of residence' instead - as a Conservative? Wightman Rd and environs are so weighed down with councillors it's no wonder the bloody road's sinking.
-
Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on
-
I don't wish to divert the discussion away from the inner workings of local New Labour but I am drawn to the notion of revelation on the road to Damascus and, given Brian's intransigent position on public support for any measure to improve the lives of residents on this side of Green Lanes w.r.t. traffic, I might suggest that he may be considering changing the first letter of his name and standing for public approval over here. This, surely, is the only explanation for the following assurances I have received from Ms Kober:
.....the pavement along Wightman Road between Atterbury Road and Cavendish Road[around the Church don't you see?]will be resurfaced along both sides of the road.
and in relation to the Local Safety Scheme Programme:
This may include an extension of the existing 'ladders' 20mph zone which will include Wightman Road.
I don't think we've seen an end to the political Life of Brian.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
