Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Running Total #4
Tonight's Labour Party shortlisting results, as far as is known.
(See update#3 for previous votes.)
Bounds Green
Ali Demirci and Joanna Christophides triggered. Clare Bull not standing.
Harringay
Gina Adamou and Zena Brabazon re-selected. Emine Ibrahim is the third Harringay councillor and has been selected for Noel Park ward for 2018.
Peter Chalk, Sarah James and Maria Jennings, shortlisted candidates, all are anti HDV.
Hornsey
Adam Jogee re-selected. Jennifer Mann triggered. Elin Weston re-selected after reballot due to tie.
St Ann’s
Noah Tucker re-selected. Barbara Blake triggered. Ali Gul Ozbek stood down.
Julie Davies, Tom Peters and Mike Hakata shortlisted
Stroud Green
Kirsten Hearn re-selected. Raj Sahota and Tim Gallagher have stood down.
Shani. Eldridge and Frank Daniels shortlisted.
So all these wards will have selection meetings next week, and the remaining five will be shortlisting.
Here's tonight's map.
Tags for Forum Posts: 2017, Labour, selections
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
Hi Pam
One small correction. Ali Gul Ozbek is a councillor in St. Ann's not Harringay. He has stood down for 2018. Emine is the third Harringay councillor and has been selected for Noel Park ward for 2018.
Zena
Zena Brabazon
Cllr, Harringay ward
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks Pam.
Raj Sahota has since withdrawn. He has written a letter in which he recognises that his support for the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) was a large factor in his deselection. "Much was said last night about why I should be deselected because of my stand on the HDV" . He then expressed what seems to be an emerging "line": that people opposing the HDV are pursuing an "ideological agenda" ... "advanced by a "narrow political sect".
Similar terms were used by Noel Park councillor Alan Strickland whose withdrawal statement included the phrases "narrow factionalism” and “factional activists”.
I'm told that Cllr Sahota is an honest man and someone who says what he believes to be true. A pity then that he didn't spend a little more time fact-checking. Whatever people's views on the HDV - pro or con - the coalition opposing it is far from narrow. As LibDem councillor Clive Carter accurately wrote in the Ham & High newspaper: "The HDV is opposed by two Labour MPs, most of the local Labour Party, all of the opposition Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, Tottenham Tories, other parties and organisations, as well as ordinary unaligned members of the public."
In his statement Cllr Raj Sahota asks people to:
"...spare a thought for the many thousands of people in temporary accommodation in Haringey and those in substandard, damp and overcrowded accommodation in Tottenham. The HDV offered some realistic prospect for them that they could be rehoused sometime soon in decent accommodation."
I've heard such claims and hopes expressed before. I also accept that many Labour councillors who express these hopes are genuine and well intentioned. But I have yet to see any evidence that this prospect is in any way accurate or "realistic". In my view, in the short and medium term at least, the contrary is far more likely.
-
-
Similar stuff here from Tim Gallagher, a Stroud Green councillor who has also withdrawn.
https://twitter.com/gallagher_tim/status/934005363812327424.
A very revealing letter from a councillor who actually sat on Haringey's Scrutiny Committee and agreed its report criticising the HDV. I wonder why on earth he didn't just issue his own statement dissenting from their reports?
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Cook on
-
Showing yourself to be utterly classless again there Alan, as well as selectively ignoring the very clear criticism of the approach that you have so gleefully been the embodiment of over a prolonged period of time, that is, to shout insults and name-call people who dare to hold an alternative opinion to yourself.
The key question that Tim raises is one that you and other anti-HDV activists dodge - What Would You Do? With little to no money to spend & a huge housing waiting list, what would you do to improve the situation?
There's little doubt that there are improvements that could be made to the HDV, there can be to all major housing schemes, but there's also little doubt that for the most vocal opponents of the scheme there is either an ideological opposition to working with the private sector or, as in your case, an opposition to anything that Claire Kober initiates *awaits some tedious Kober/Tory-based name calling in response*
There has been much misinformation spread about the HDV & it has in effect reduced a large and complex borough to a single issue. The ramifications of this are huge, Haringey is losing a lot of talented and dedicated councillors & with massive challenges coming, the widespread deselections are an act of political nose-cutting to spite the face. But it's OK, because they supported a scheme that you don't.
You ask why Tim didn't put out a statement dissenting form the reports? Perhaps he understands the concept of Collective Responsibility? You do understand that concept don't you Alan? After all, as you keep reminding people, you were a councillor for 16 years.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
The hyperbole in adjectives that you must have learnt from Claire Kober and Karen Grant is noted. Maybe you all have the same thesaurus. Criticism of your choice of adjectives aside however...
I fully agree with the need to "DO" the thing that the HDV is doing: more housing. My objections are all over this site but here they are again for you because you put so much effort into that slightly ad-hominem post.
The boozing and schmoozing was wrong. I dare you to say it was not material. I'm certainly not allowed to do it in my job in the city as it is seen as compromising if during a negotiation.
The existence of an undeclared shadow-board was a big warning sign that the electorate (even the selectorate) would not like what was going on.
The use of Argent LLP as lawyers was wrong, because they are also Lendlease's lawyers.
The choosing of Lendlease was fake, they had been chosen before the tendering and the other two companies that tendered were also clients of Terrapin/Peter Bingle.
That the consultation seems to have been 10% with residents (who are anecdotally at least, misled to about the consequences of the HDV) and 90% with Lendlease/Terrapin, is wrong.
The fact that the promises enthusiastically made on air to Vanessa Feltz by Claire Kober are nowhere to be found in writing, is wrong. If you talk about right-to-return and it's not actually in the contract then you are open to being called a liar. It's a simple thing to fix but they'd rather all risk losing their positions as councillors than fix it.
As for criticism of this entirely democratic deselection of sitting councillors by a rejuvenated local Labour Party, Councillor Kober started that in 2013.
-
-
Sorry, law firm is Pinsent Masons.
-
-
Thanks for posting under what I assume is your real name, Roger.
I'm unsure what sort of "class" I'm supposed to have. Perhaps you mean I have no taste, or am ordinary, dull, mediocre, wear terrible clothes, have a poor accent, and an atrocious haircut. All true. Ain't got no class; never wanted any.
On all the rest, well, let's agree to differ. You make assumptions about the opponents of the HDV scheme which are in the main ad hominem assertions based on ignorance of those in the very wide coalition of people involved. The only simplifications being made are by you and others who insist that there's some simple explanation. For example: "an ideological opposition to working with the private sector". Untrue. Or in my own case: "opposition to anything that Claire Kober initiates". Also untrue. I supported both sensible things which Claire Kober did. One because I suggested it to her.
Some fortyfive+ years ago I joined the Labour Party. Not the Tory Party. Nor a pale blue version of it called 'Progress'. So I don't support the Tory policies Claire and pals advocate.
You're quite right that there has indeed been misinformation about the HDV. Almost all of it from the Council leadership and its publicly-funded and bloated Comms Unit.
I've no idea which talented and dedicated councillors you are sad about losing. Though you're probably right that some good decent ward councillors will be missed. It's a shame they didn't listen more carefully and sensitively to the critique of the HDV and other KoberTory policies.
Because it isn't just the HDV. I may be wrong, but I imagine that: the fire-sale of Hornsey Town Hall; slashing adult social services; litter and dumping in the streets; and many other issues would have been on people's minds when they went into the selection meetings. In my own ward branch the closure of the local Reuse & Recycling Centre brought a few members along to the meeting to deselect a sitting councillor.
If you would please bear with me, let me explain why your final paragraph shows a lack of understanding of the Scrutiny process. I regularly served on Scrutiny panels and at one point chaired one. So despite your sneering, yes I do understand the concept. But I don't believe there is any doctrine or convention of 'Collective Responsibility' in Scrutiny. That's the whole point of it.
It's highly dubious in any case, to import the Parliamentary cabinet convention into local government. Though of course it suits an autocratic regime like Kober's. Her so-called "cabinet" colleagues and other appointees appear on the whole chosen for their obedience.
Scrutiny Committees and panels in local councils are cross-party. They are sometimes chaired by opposition parties. Naturally there's an attempt to reach consensus. Not least because the concluding report would probably carry more weight. But there's no whipping nor any compulsion for everyone to agree with everything.
If you think of other sorts of committees you'll know that they sometimes have minority reports. These can be incredibly helpful in setting out where disagreements lie - the fault lines if you like. Sometimes and not rarely, Minority Reports prompt further debate and end up as new majority views.
We teach school children about "the Power of One" and not to be afraid to stand-up and to speak-out. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an elected councillor on a scrutiny committee to insist on being recorded as abstaining or asking for her/his disagreement to be noted. Or even to produce a minority report if they feel that one is needed.
Some decades ago I spent several years researching about and with co-operative and collective teams. And reading widely about many other sorts of teams. In healthy creative teams and organisations, whether in the commercial or non-profit sectors - collaboration is valued and encouraged and mechanisms for vigorous debate and dissent are welcomed
Though not of course in a sick organisation where dissent is discouraged and sometimes punished while Kobsequious obedience is rewarded by being in the Leader's favour and perhaps with posts and extra allowances. (Stuart McNamara's insider letter sets it out.)
-
-
I'll come back to the majority of your post when I have time, but I can't help but notice that you, again, haven't said what you'd do as an alternative. Could it be that you don't have an answer?
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
I've been thinking about the cabinet/structure thing. What arrangements are permissible for running a council? I know it all got changed under Blair.
No doubt one of the things being intensely discussed in the next few weeks will be who should be the new Dear Leader. But eg do we have to have just one? Can they hand-pick their own cabinet again or can we draw on the thousands of LBH members' expertise beyond this few weeks of input?
-
-
Alan,
Class, as I mentioned in my reply to John, was a perhaps poorly chosen word. I was referring to your choice to dance on the graves, so to speak, of those deselected, it's just unseemly. You would probably tell me and others it's justified, I disagree & I don't think that we will having a meeting of minds on that.
Interesting things that I never thought I'd type:
I actually agree with you on a couple of things.
The Comms dept at Haringey could certainly lose its AD. I'm not really sure what she adds. I'd read Sarah Hayward's post about the factually wrong information that HDV opponents have propagated before casting too many stones in the Council's direction (for the record, I'm not trying to say they're perfect here)
Also, I agree about the creative tension point that you make, I actually follow this principle myself in teams that I lead, I think it is healthy to have alternative viewpoints put forward. How is this going to work with a homogenous view of an issue post-election? Where is the creative tension there? Also, there are prominent members of the soon to be newly constituted group whose debate style is to shout louder if you disagree with them, how will that help?
However, if there is a majority opinion in teams where discussion is welcomed, you go with the majority - what seems to be expected is that a minority group would hold sway?
In terms of other issues & cuts, you must know that the Council doesn't have a brass farthing? With funding being cut to the bone, what would you have them do? Follow the proposal for a huge Council Tax hike? Haringey already has the 7th highest Council Tax levels in the capital.
I'll concede your point on Scrutiny, perhaps there should have been a point made noting opposition to the report. I will ask the question though, of the Councillors who oppose the HDV, how many, if any, do you actually think would have been persuaded by a minority report, regardless of how well it was written?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
