Haringey Efficiency And Savings Programme - New proposals to Scrutiny Committee
(see document attached). Note, these are proposals yet to be voted through. The full council cabinet meeting will consider these proposals on February 8th.
Thank you to Councillor Alan Stanton for directing us to this document, released on the council website Friday 21st January.
Some items from the document are highlighted below. Feel free to highlight others.
Item 61 (page 5)
The Children Centre service will be reduced and services targeted to most vulnerable families. Will result in reduction to number of centres designated as providing the core children's centre offer.
Item 75 (page 7)
Decommissioning of Neighbourhood Management Service
Close 'Neighbourhood Management' service, transferring key functions to other services within the Council.
Item 59 (page 5)
After School Clubs
Resources from 'extended services' grant to be delegated to schools within their budgets. Intention is to secure new ways of providing this service through schools, other council providers, partners and a range of alternative providers.
item 43 (page 4)
Commercial Leasing of Parks Based Facilities
Proposal to develop commercial leisure provision in parks in partnership with private sector/third sector operators. Noted that this 'will attract some opposition to Commercialisation'
Item 58 (page 5)
Parks maintenance reduced
Parks staffing 'efficiences' will lead to a 50% reduction in Parks and Open Spaces maintenance regimes. Nineteen staff will go.
Item 70 (page 6)
Restructure Planning Service
Proposal will mean London Borough of Haringey's Planning Service will be 'one of the smallest in London'.
All work will need to be focused and prioritised. 'It will not be possible to deal with all desired planning policy, projects, regeneration and requests by public & councillors.
Items 79 & 80 (page 7)
Cessation of 'Victim Support for young people' & 'Independent Domestic Violence Advocate roles'
No further funding available.
were you present or are you just rehashing the inaccurate reports you've read in the local papers? There was no violence, just worried and angry residents wanting to stop their public services being wrecked by politicians of all parties. There was one chalked slogan on a council table, and one door accidentally broken when people were trying to get into the council chamber. The mindless vandalism is the unnecessary damage being done to our public services which we all rely on.
Not at all Matt - what I find frustrating are the malicious cuts to frontline services that the council are making yet protecting back office and support service jobs. The lib dems made some thoroughly sensible suggestions that could have mitigated many of the more nasty cuts.
Don't take my word for it or the Socialist worker types - why not independently look at how many years you have to go back to find the same overall council spend. Ok not exactly scientific but all this talk of going back to the stone age is just over-reactionary.
I would say no more frustrated than 80% or so of the population who live in safe seats - bring on AV!
". . . malicious cuts to frontline services that the council are making yet protecting back office and support service jobs."
Any actual evidence for the allegation of malice?
Oh sorry - I guess I had to be actually in the council chamber to have a view on this did I?
Its surprising how much accidental damage seems to take place in demonstrations against the cuts and government. You'd have thought after all the accidental damage to the treasury and implements accidentally damaging the Prince of Wales's car that some people should be more careful. Of course the local papers report these accidents incorrectly and the indy media correctly reports the police violence that took place whilst all these accidents were happening.....
P.S. Some people have had trouble watching the webcast. This link should work.
If you're running Windows and it asks you to install Windows Media Player 11, you don’t need to. There's a plug-in for FireFox.
For the deputations, jump to 29 minutes into the meeting.
● Do you think national Governments should stop issuing bonds?
No, I hold some. Individuals of course are not forced to buy them.
● Or leave all capital investment to the private sector?
● That our Government should have let Northern Rock and other banks collapse?
No and I hope my shares in RBS will recover. I think the Government should have prevented Rock and the others from getting into a collapse situation in the first place.
● In brief what are your views on John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge?
Keynes - I think the policy of fiscal intervention at government level is the only practicable option in times of crisis. I am not a free marketeer.
Beveridge - I applaud the Welfare State, although I think he went a bit far when he said ( in his younger days ) "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry, are to be recognised as 'unemployable'. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights — including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood."
I do not say that the Government should not play a part in guiding or directing fiscal policy: I say they should have done more of it and not encouraged the Financial Regulators to apply a light touch to the banks' dubious frenetic trading activities which were bringing in much-needed tax revenue which could be used to paper over the cracks in Labour's spendthrift economy.
John, as you well know the practice of comparative advantage has been around for some time (ie. before Labour) and whilst Thatcher seemed to break the unions to reduce wage costs in the UK, she ended up overseeing a speeding up of the process of UK production in many industries moving east, where the cost of labour was cheaper for global business empires.
City trading of financial instruments then grew to fund and under write the massive growth in global trade made possible by the cheap labour of newly 'open' countries (from Eastern Europe through to the far east). The UK has been trying replace wealth from lost manufactured exports receipts with the growth in The City financial trade ever since.
Such a trade off appears to have faltered and I don't think it was anything to do with which party was in power. You see, tangible things like manufactured goods can be tracked, counted, have real value for an economy. No surprises. The financial world; no one knew who was doing what .... well some knew mortgages were being sold to people on the dole in the US but then, they were the ones earning the commission. :)
Comparative advantage is interesting in theory, but of course in practice there are some things that limit its usefulness:
1. People do not live forever.
2. The cost of transportation is variable and can be very high.
3. The earth is not an infinite place where there's "something" for "everyone".
4. Some jobs are crap.
Number one is there because economists often talk of a "period of adjustment" which can be (and often is) as much as someone's working lifetime.
Yes, and when based largely on driving down labour costs, as has been the case it's a road to nowhere, or a road that keeps on moving around the world to the next cheapest labour market.
My understanding of comparative advantage in student days had been particularly centred on skills base/knowledge/resource (eg. silk coming from China) but the 'new' China has changed the game completely. They're so big and so concerned to keep creating jobs for their own population that resources needed to feed their factories (products from which we all buy) are bought in from around the world, from Brazil to Indonesia to central Africa. The significance of this activity (the scale) by China is fairly new. Cost of resource is no longer the significant factor. Cost of 100 million unemployed is.
Of course the more resource cost does go up the more determined the Chinese govt will be to subsidize their exports to the world market by keeping the yuan undervalued.
But, we digress! Back to Haringey.
To add into the pot of background information; the council's long term debt is £600 million and relates to capital investment which the Council has undertaken in previous years and the current year. 66% of this debt relates to investment in council housing. Above figure found under section 'Capital Investments', (page 8 of the pdf).
Accounts 2009/10 attached.