Haringey is taking "one of the biggest gambles ever to be made by local government"

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on July 7, 2017 at 11:55

Thanks Hugh, your page reference in that report is very helpful.

The public pack _ over 1400 pages published only a week before the Cabinet meeting - has several documents which echo the issue about 'cast iron guarantees. Turn to the member agreement on pages 108 and 9 of the Member agreement and you will see that any such 'guarantees' are caveated.  I have asked whether this supersedes the council's stated policy.

The papers also include a breakdown of the properties to be demolished in Northumberland  Park, with a map on page 985 which shows the literal redline drawn around the area. Page 986 has a table showing 889 council homes, 252 private sector  freehold properties and a couple of hundred leaseholds. In total 1417 homes scheduled to go.  A list of actual street private properties is set out on pages 992-1006. I have asked if these owners know about this and if they have bee notified as to why their properties are included in this formal document which the Cabinet agreed on Monday night. The implications of being in this redline are very serious indeed I think. I didn't get an answer at the meeting so have written. 

The appendices are too big to upload so the link to the documents on the Council's website is here: 

https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=118&am...

Webcast is here:

https://haringey.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/285832

To let HoL members know, all three Harringay ward councillors have been opposed to the HDV raising issue after issue.  Emine has chaired the 2 Scrutinies and I am a member of her committee. We both spoke at the Cabinet meeting on Monday night, and along with many other Labour councillors asked several very searching questions. We will continue to do this.

Zena 

Zena Brabazon 

Cllr, Harringay Ward

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on July 5, 2017 at 8:54

The Labour council will be selecting council candidates for next May's election after the school holidays. All local Labour Party members are eligible to take part in their ward's selection meetings provided they have lived in that ward and been a member of the Labour Party for a specified period of time (probably since January).

Tonight the local wards will have their AGMs and I encourage as many Labour Party members as possible to get along and make themselves available to be party officers and take part in their appointments. When this was done in 2013 the meetings were poorly attended which encourages the Haringey leadership to meddle.

I hope people can make the connection now between the HDV, which has been brewing since the council's first trip to Cannes, and the Labour Party selection meetings in 2013. You cannot get this through unless you have a majority of the councillors on your side and to do that you need your friends to be selected as councillors first.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on July 6, 2017 at 1:01

Brewing since the Riot and Stuart Lipton Report, John. Disaster Capitalism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on July 7, 2017 at 11:50

Does it matter if 'ordinary' Cllrs oppose LBH Cabinet decisions, John? Last time nearly one-third did (over Hornsey Town Hall) they failed to make any difference - it went ahead regardless.

There seems to be a pattern - occasional 'revolts' by Cllrs, whereupon the whip lays down the law.

When you get selected to stand for election as a party Cllr, it is on condition that you follow the party whip. When Cllrs rebel they are punished including being ejected (having the whip removed).

Senior Cabinet members have usually been in post for a long time - I presume in all Councils they get better and better at ensuring success before they announce specific proposals. In secret meetings, Cllrs are told en masse what's going to happen and invited to comment.

I hope that, if their fellow Cllrs can convince the Cabinet that they're wrong or have missed something, they'll be accommodated but if you can't you as a Cllr have to accept collective responsibility whether you like it or not.

In other words, the Leader and trusted Lieutenants can get broadly anything through they want to - that's what leadership is all about. I guess that any new Cllrs will be told - "wait till you've been here a few years before you are credible enough to upset the applecart".

What we need is a more 'collegiate' system that dissolves the 'command and control' model that 'Leadership' depends on. To use it, we'll need our voices much more clearly heard. Participatory budgeting via online voting. Will need a sea-change in transparency but has been done elsewhere. newcities.org/why-paris-is-building-the-worlds-biggest-participator....

Let's help ourselves to more representation and less leadership.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on July 7, 2017 at 15:04

Unusually Chris, you and I seem to agree on your key point here: the final two paragraphs.

But before that, let me confirm from my sixteen years experience as a councillor that your first and second paragraphs are accurate.
Paragraph three accurately states that councillors are expected to follow the Party whip. It's part of the deal when someone stands as a Labour councillor. But there are acknowledged formal and informal occasions when that is not the case.
For instance, you may not be aware that in the past this expectation was never absolute. Before I became a councillor I served as a (voluntary) Labour Group observer from my ward and attended many Group meetings and reported back to my ward.
There were occasions when long established councillors refused to support the whip. Cllr Reg Rice and the late Maureen Dewar dissented on an education issue. They were governors of large secondary schools. What happened to them?. As far as I recall, nothing. It was understood that Labour councillors are people of principle and passion.
I recall a similar example when local ward councillors were allowed to oppose the Leadership Line on Pinkham Way Waste station. (Which in the end didn't happen.)

Your fourth paragraph is factually outdated. It's accurate - as you say - that having a preponderance of more experienced councillors as chairs and 'lead' councillors used to be the case. But far less so when the dysfunctional "cabinet" system was introduced. It follows that your para 6 is also out-of-date.

Nor is it true (para 5 ) that dissenting councillors are accommodated as you assume/hope.
As for the doctrine of collective responsibility.That seems to have been rather thoughtlessly imported from national Cabinet Government as a way of gagging local councillors and preventing ongoing debate. In the past there was always the possibility of bringing topics back to the Labour Group after a lapse of time. It was essential to have this possibility, as things change.
"Events, Dear Boy, events", is a remark Harold Macmillan is credited with. (The Daily Telegraph disputed the quotation, presumably because it believes in a forever fixed world view.)

But finally, yes, you and I agree that we desperately need a far more collegiate system, And less leader-leader-leader-have-I-mentioned-leader? Though personally I think face-to-face discussion works better than online voting. Among the best things that have gone on in the Tottenham Labour Party have been members' and guest speakers' discussions at a local pub.

So it would have been grand if "cabinet" councillors and even the Supreme Beloved Dear Leader herself had gone along to the Scrutiny Panel on the HDV, listened to and chatted with the guest speakers from outside. (Who included Justin Guest.) But as far as I know, none of them bothered.
(Incidentally the speakers all gave their time for nothing. Not a single one getting £870 a day to sit listening and nodding.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on July 7, 2017 at 21:10

Thanks, Alan. We're both on the left.

I shy away from 'face-to-face' because it's so un-auditable. The model of 'good men and true' coming to a true consensus after having considered evidence is a hollow farce - strong personalities 'rule':

The 'pyramidial' model (even when tempered by a more collegiate approach) works against the majority because it's impossible to represent views if you're a party member elected by a minority of voters. Put more starkly, if the majority of voters would not agree but your party wants something pushed through, you have no choice but to support it or quit. So Brexit will happen despite, apparently, the reported 54% who are now are against it.

The idea of Cllrs having friendly chats isn't great - it still means they still then pass through the 'behind closed doors' phase to reach a decision.

What has changed, as always, is that we have possibilities we never had before - mass participation. Whatever system we have can be improved by mass participation. It's technically possible for every voter (they all have secure accounts on the Haringey web site) to vote on every issue - that's a change I can see making a difference.

It can start small - a simple bit of software developed to give people the chance to play with the budget and 'own' the effects of political decisions themselves.

If residents only knew the reality!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt on July 5, 2017 at 12:37

Kober does seem to be saying that all current council tenants will be rehoused back on the same estate after rebuild with the same lease period and at the same rate. If that's the case then it might be a good idea to point out how the developer will be making money from the 20 year development programme, otherwise people get suspicious about what is being said & we're left speculating how their profit might be made, with public land.

So I'll take a couple of guesses;

• Lendlease is allowed to build/sell at 100% market value on sites such as the current Wood Green library, the Civic Centre & the Station Rd site(s) and other sites not currently used for housing
• Housing estates see more housing units built on the same land than are currently there (by building more towers) with extra units sold at 100% market rate

If anyone knows how profit it actually being made please share. Maybe a look at how the Woodberry Down estate has been managed in its change over ... have council residents been rehoused back onto the estate?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on July 5, 2017 at 14:58

I think you're bang on, densification was how Woodberry Down was paid for. Nice that they get those commercial units too. Better make sure they put some rich people who spend their money locally into those flats.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on July 7, 2017 at 11:19

If you read the Scrutiny Committee report you might have seen my name pop up a few times- I am billed as a 'Risk Expert', which is not strictly true, but I have a lot of experience of how the commercial world works, and how developers like Lend Lease can operate (at their best, but also at their worst).

I am not qualified to comment really on the social aspect of the HDV, and the massive impact on the people whose lives will be affected. I should also say I am not strictly against this initiative- the reality is there is no money to do what needs to be done, and this is one of the only ways that councils like Haringey can access the massive amount of investment required for infrastructure (re)development on the scale that need to be achieved. However, the big issue I have with this initiative is the way it is being done.

Risk is inherent in any venture, but it was not clear to me, from what I could see and the documentation available to me, that Haringey have got a good handle on the risks of this process. I suggested that a critical component in successful delivery of the HDV is to have the right advisers with commercial experience working along side, and for, the council. Lend Lease are commercial actors, they do this stuff day in day out. My worry is that the council has a bunch of Councillors and officers who have possibly no experience of how the real world works outside the closeted public sector, all getting excited because this is a sexy project (its not another library reorganisation). They simply do not have the experience to manage a relationship of equals with Lend Lease. They are going to have rings run around them.

A key factor for me is the claim that the assets will be put into a commercial structure designed to isolate the council from risk with each party owing 50% of the venture which guarantees the council the ability to control the HDV. From my perspective, having been in a business where I managed a 50% shareholding, this is a recipe for disaster and far from promoting the control Haringey believe they will have they have simply designed a mechanism for each party to frustrate the other and hold each other to ransom. 

I should add that the biggest risk is if this thing fails, and Lend Lease pull out half way through. Who knows, their funding lines dry up, they want to stop investing because they see the costs spiraling out of control and their returns falling, another financial crisis creates who knows what turbulence- who knows what it may be. In such a situation, with 1,700 or what ever homes having been demolished and families being housed in temporary accommodation, possible at the cost of Haringey, who steps in to finish the redevelopment? Of course that insulation in a commercial structure looking to isolate liability does not look so clever now. Haringey are always offering a council backed balance sheet guarantee- they just do not know it yet. Haringey's social responsibilities will mean they will always be on the hook. What does that mean? Possibly the council being taken into special measures when the council is bankrupted and a lot of political careers burned!

I could be wrong on this, Haringey could have a good handle on these risks and are managing them appropriately. If that is the case I did not see it, and nothing I saw led me to believe they were on top of it. Time will tell.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on July 7, 2017 at 12:11

Thanks for this Justin. Unfortunately I don't think time will tell because if that were true, we'd be able to use past successes and failures to bring about significant changes but we can't and don't - the winners re-write history or claim that 'that was then' or 'I wasn't there so can't comment'.

I'd like to see the risks quantified more objectively, as I guess is a significant part of your expertise. With so much redacted for reasons of commercial confidence, I suspect you feel it's not possible to be objective enough though, so aren't you taking an unquantifiable risk in making an educated guess?

By the way IMHO it brings your view less credence to cite Cllrs as out of touch. Not sure people with 'real-world' experience even exist - what is this 'real' world like? Peopled by ordinary citizens? Who is best qualified to deliver the very best local government? Millionaire business people like Trump or Branson? National Treasures? Shop stewards? University dons? The person on the Clapham Omnibus?

As you clearly understand, the public sector isn't simply a capitalistic mechanism with the profit motive suppressed. It works in fundamentally different ways that require different expertise. Who has gained this expertise?

The only people who have a hope are politicians, as bad as they are at it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on July 7, 2017 at 12:22

Chris. Take from this what you wish, this is simply my opinion as I see it. I have substantial experience of working in a highly commercial environment, but i am far from an expert on projects like this. My suggestion was not that that many of our Councillor friends and the Officers that run the council are out of touch- those are your words, I was suggesting that they may lack  the kind of experience needed to manage this successfully. I slightly caveated it when I wrote this, because I am not sure this is a fact. Some may. However, if any of the members leading the HDV work from within Haringey would like to correct me they are welcome to. It would be a welcome relief to know this is in capable hands.

Please note, I was not trying to imply any of the personalities involved in this are not well meaning, simply that I feel there is a deficit of experience that (again) allows for a relationship of equals! I think your 4th paragraph somewhat makes my point.

As to quantifying the risks. Chris, this is not for me to do, it is for Haringey to be aware of and on top of the risks and how they are managed/mitigated. This is what I did not see in the review of the information I had available to me. It may be there, and I hope it is, but I did not see it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on July 7, 2017 at 12:59

Chris, the way I'm seeing this is that there are two partners who have come together to deliver this and they both have very different priorities. For Haringey it is provide an improved social infractsructure in the borough. For Lend Lease it is to make money. I've no problem with a company putting up the money for something as huge as this wanting a return on their investment. What worries me is that the relationship in completely unequal. Haringey are putting in things that once gone, are gone. Once these properties are demolished there is absolutely no way back.

Lend Lease seem to be holding all the cards in this deal. If they walk out of it mid project they will of course make a loss, but being a business they will have factored this into their decision to sign the contract. For Haringey there will be only two options. To be left with a Borough where parts of it look post-Blitz and continue to pay for alternative accommodation for the thousands of displaced residents, or to give Lend Lease or what they want to keep then in the deal. Actually there is probably a third option which is to go cap in hand to whoever will bail them out, on whatever terms they want.

I completely understand issues around commercial confidentially but for a proposal like this, where people's lives and the future of entire communities is being gambled on, they least we deserve is everything on the table so we can see and and be confident about what plans and checks are in place to prevent the worst case happening.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page