Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Running total #5.
Results of the third and fourth week of selections for Labour Party candidates for next May's Council elections.
(See update#3 for previous votes.)
Results so far from Week 4. Candidates for Fortis Green (done), Highgate, and Muswell Hill will be selected Tuesday and Wednesday.
Crouch End
Jason Arthur Sarah Elliot Natan Doron triggered and stood down.
Selected - Charley Allen, Annette Baker and Will Sherett
Alexandra
Liz McShane reselected. James_Patterson stood down. Selected - Nikki Pound & Sean O'Donovan
(David Beacham Lib. is third incumbent)
Fortis Green
Pat Berryman moved to fight new ward - Bounds Green
Update Tuesday - Marta Gave , Jessica Tabois & Anna Lawton all selected
(Martin Newton + Viv Ross, Libs, incumbents)
Muswell Hill -
Mark Blake selected elsewhere. (Woodside)
Shortlisted Shani Kara, Pete Chalk and Tom Peters
(Pip Connor, Gail Engert Libs, incumbents)
Highgate
(Clive Carter, Bob Hare, Liz Morris, Libs, incumbents)
shortlist - Shahab Mossavat, Emma Whysall, & Shani Kara
Completed results from week 3
Bounds Green
Ali Demirci and Joanna Christophides triggered. Clare Bull stood down.
Selected - Yvonne Say, Pat Berryman & James Chiriyankandath
Harringay
Gina Adamou and Zena Brabazon re-selected. Sarah James selected.
Hornsey
Adam Jogee re-selected. Jennifer Mann triggered. Elin Weston re-selected after reballot due to tie. Selected - Dana Carlin
St Ann’s
Noah Tucker re-selected. Barbara Blake triggered. Ali Gul Ozbek stood down.
Julie Davies and Mike Hakata selected.
Stroud Green
Kirsten Hearn re-selected. Raj Sahota and Tim Gallagher stood down.
Eldridge Culverwell and Daniel Stone selected. [correction]
Map so far:
Tags for Forum Posts: 2017, Labour, selections
- Attachments:
-
-
haringey_selections_7.jpg, 326 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by TimP on
-
Thank you for your response. It would be good to see an independent assessor review the claims of both sides and the options for going forward. Would you support that?
-
Permalink Reply by Philip Rose on
-
speaking for myself, In theory that is something worth exploring. depending upon how we determine independent. But that isnt an insurmountable hurdle.
I would of course point out that an independent assessor is doing this very thing as we speak,in response to our Judicial Review.
The StopHDV campaign of which I am part has always been interestested in a public debate on the issues and this isn't a million miles from that.
Can I ask why you ask that?
-
-
I do but this isnt a test of how clever we are.
My reply was in response to another question.
Since you clearly have nothing positive to contribute to the conversation, and I dont want a pen pal, kindly assume I shall be ignoring you until you have something positive to say.
-
-
Yes. A judicial review is helpful. Although it has certain terms it will assist in assessing the issues
The reason I ask is it seems positions are entrenched on both sides and no doubt passionately held by people who want the best but it has become very propaganda based in my view, all round
as some one who sees the importance of the issue and the big financial stakes together with the changing nature of the council in May I think some impartial oversight would be helpful to both effective scrutiny and delivery
-
-
I do find your response interesting Tim.
I cant speak in this on behalf of the StopHDV campaign, but i can say that the general view held by most people is nothing is gained by holding entrenched positions with no communication.
I also think most people I know in the Labour party would take the view that the Labour party works as a broad church of ideas. I would also say most people I know are more interested in good positive and creative ideas within a set of principles than rigid dogmatism.
I dont know how or if this helps, but if it helps to break down unecessarily entrenched positions perhaps it does.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
You're entirely missing the point, TimP. The Council leadership is determined to press ahead on its plan. They did not properly engage with the Scrutiny Panels reports. None of the so-called cabinet councillors bothered even to attend the Scrutiny sessions, listen to and question the independent external experts.
They are currently still running the Haringey show. Cllr Alan Strickland has repeated that he intends to sign an agreement on the HDV.
What's holding him back? A Judicial Review is before the High Court with judgement expected imminently. If the objectors are successful Kober, Strickland & Co may decide to appeal. The same vice versa.
Strickland has been deselected as a candidate. Clearly he hopes that when he ceases being a councillor in May he will walk way leaving the HDV in place. A huge risky mess in my view. But not in his. There can be no independent review about whether or not the scheme works and should go ahead once it's signed.
Its Thelma and Louise time. Over the cliff. But none of the councillors signing the deal are on board the car.
-
-
So your whole counter to my points about what is proposed by the HDV is to complain about the word luxury. Please refer to my comment on gesture politics.
Thank you for giving a perfect demonstration of what I wrote about.
I have lived in Tottenjham for 34 years. I suspect I know it better than you.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
The billboards around the development will say luxury. I bet you your weight in pound coins Billy.
-
-
Billy, Shelter have suffered entryism by property developers. They have no credibility.
-
-
I trust my own research for beginners. Everything around the demolition and building of new homes in Haringey stinks and if that isn't enough to put you off then I don't know what is.
-
Permalink Reply by kotkas on
-
Hi Philip Rose - I really like the points you raise about evidence. Let's focus on that.
Where exactly did you get the figure of 1000s of council buildings being demolished? Haven't seen any such statements anywhere. Even if that were the case, the council is building 1,800 affordable homes (40% of the total development) - it appears to me that they are comfortably exceeding the stated target. As for rent costs - the council has an affordable housing rent policy on which current rents seem to be set:
"The Council's policy is to set affordable rents at a proportion of actual market rents based on the size of the property. The council's agreed proportions for each property size are set out below:
Housing Strategy Rents
No. of bedrooms % of market rent
1 bed 70%
2 bed 65%
3 bed 55%
4bed+ 45%"I know the word 'market' scares the bejesus out of you lot so let's just be clear - anything can be mathematically expressed in terms of 'market' values - in fact the government's policy for social housing rents is pegged vs. market rents.
So let's recap - the council is building 1,800 affordable homes, that's 40% of total housing stock being delivered via the HDV. The council also owns 50% of the total development, which means that they have equal say over what is built, and what proportion is affordable or otherwise.
-
-
If you think that 50/50 ownership implies 50/50 power here, you're wrong. Lendlease are huge and global. This is like the poor young lady entering into a 50/50 marriage with a huge wealthy land owner.
Where did you get the 40% affordable? I think they were selling the affordable housing but perhaps that's changed. There was at best, no new council housing. Has that changed too?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
