Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Elect a Haringey Mayor?
The introduction of new legislation has given the Council the opportunity to take a fresh look at the way it is governed - and for you to comment on the proposals. Two forms of council leadership are being considered.
All local councils in the country are required to review their executive decision-making arrangements in time for the next local elections, which is may 2010.
You have 2 choices;
Leader
The Leader would be responsible for all executive functions, and would decide which of these functions were going to be delegated to other Cabinet members, local committees or council officers. The Cabinet would be selected by the Leader and not by the whole Council as at present.
Another change to the current arrangements is that the Leader would be selected by elected Councillors for a period of four years at the first meeting of the Council after the borough's public elections.
Mayor
Under the elected Mayor option, people in Haringey would vote for a Mayor who would hold office for a period of four years. Once elected the Mayor would be responsible for all executive functions and would decide which of these functions were going to be delegated to other Cabinet members, local committees or council officers. The Mayor would select a Cabinet.
Put your preference at the council's survey.
The survey closes on 10 July 2009.
All local councils in the country are required to review their executive decision-making arrangements in time for the next local elections, which is may 2010.
You have 2 choices;
Leader
The Leader would be responsible for all executive functions, and would decide which of these functions were going to be delegated to other Cabinet members, local committees or council officers. The Cabinet would be selected by the Leader and not by the whole Council as at present.
Another change to the current arrangements is that the Leader would be selected by elected Councillors for a period of four years at the first meeting of the Council after the borough's public elections.
Mayor
Under the elected Mayor option, people in Haringey would vote for a Mayor who would hold office for a period of four years. Once elected the Mayor would be responsible for all executive functions and would decide which of these functions were going to be delegated to other Cabinet members, local committees or council officers. The Mayor would select a Cabinet.
Put your preference at the council's survey.
The survey closes on 10 July 2009.
Tags for Forum Posts: Council Leadership
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
I don't think that elections are a hassle - except in the way that they should be, that is, hard to win and therefore requiring lots of work and engaging with voters. In fact, it is because I think elections are so significant that I would disagree with the idea that horse-trading after an election, between people with conflicting manifestoes, is a democratic process. If you elect 57 people in Haringey, all with different manifestoes, and then ask them to form an executive from amongst themselves, many of them (even the ones who get into the Cabinet) will end up not carrying out their pledges. That isn't their fault - it is the way the system has been set up. But fundamentally you won't know what sort of executive priorities you'll get until after the election, and after the horse-trading is finished.
Compare this with a party system, where the horse-trading has already taken place within political parties (for political parties are, in a way, perpetual coalitions with rules and common aims) before they seek election - so the voters get to decide which, already-agreed set of executive priorities they want to see implemented. Obviously, parties may not carry out their electoral promises, and might have lots of excuses for it, but crucially, if you know what they promised and you know that they had control of all the executive machinery necessary to carry it out, then it is voters who get to judge whether you accept that party's explanations for why they didn't achieve something and, in turn, whether you believe they'll achieve more stuff they say they want to in future. Thus, the election becomes the key point where the major priorities of the Council are decided, rather than afterwards (where voters do not have the chance to give their input).
The point about the Greens also raises an interesting issue about the democratic problems of coalitions - and that they tend to favour the policies of the third most popular political party: it is extremely rare in Europe for a coalition to be formed between the two largest parties (Germany since 2005 is a conspicuous exception), so the people who get represented in coalitions are those who voted for the most popular party and then those who voted for the third party - those who voted for the second party don't get a look in. This seems problematic for democracy. More than that, the third party often has a disproportionate influence on the policies of the executive to the size of their vote, because they are the kingmakers. This might be great for the people who make up and vote for the third party, but it isn't very democratic.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
The point about the Greens also raises an interesting issue about the democratic problems of coalitions - and that they tend to favour the policies of the third most popular political party: it is extremely rare in Europe for a coalition to be formed between the two largest parties (Germany since 2005 is a conspicuous exception), so the people who get represented in coalitions are those who voted for the most popular party and then those who voted for the third party - those who voted for the second party don't get a look in.
NONSENSE!!!
The majority party is so afraid of the "2nd" placed party that they implement half their policies as well! Just look at where Labour and the Conservatives sit on the political spectrum. The main parties are so concerned with power they watch the way people vote and "adapt policy accordingly"/"encapsulate the burgeoning market for voting on that issue". -
-
-
@JohnMcMullan
For some reason, I can't reply directly to your post, so I've replied to mine, but I'll quote yours just so it's clear if these end up on the site in the wrong order!
John McMullan said:
"NONSENSE!!!
The majority party is so afraid of the "2nd" placed party that they implement half their policies as well! Just look at where Labour and the Conservatives sit on the political spectrum. The main parties are so concerned with power they watch the way people vote and "adapt policy accordingly"/"encapsulate the burgeoning market for voting on that issue"."
I'm not going to get into a discussion about the similarities or differences between Tories and Labour because that kind of politics isn't what this site is for and I'd rather keep this to a more general discussion about appropriate structures and institutions for democracy to work. So I'll just say that I think, on the issue of the two major parties in any system "stealing" each other's policies, that I'd agree there is definite evidence for that in all systems I can think of.
However, there are two points worth noting: firstly, that doesn't prove all parties are identical (there are plenty of policies they don't share), nor is there (I would argue) anything wrong with parties seeking policies that appeal to their own supporters and to the middle ground (and therefore, possibly, having policies which are the same as or similar to the other major party). The centre ground is where you win elections, and parties (to properly fulfil the functions that I think they have in democracies) ought to try very hard to win elections.
It is true that sometimes parties seem to adopt policies which only appeal to the middle ground (especially when they are defining "the middle ground" incorrectly), and leave behind some or all of their natural supporters. That isn't very good for the party concerned - I hate it when Labour does things to impress swing voters which thoroughly hacks off everyone in the party, although that tends to be more to do with the style in which it is done, rather than the substance of what has been done (although there are examples I can think of where I disagree with both). However, if a party does things that damage its standing with its own natural supporters, then it won't get elected. The party that was able to appeal to both its natural supporters, and to the centre ground, will do. That is democracy - it often produces results I dislike, but it is a sound enough idea; the example you offer still doesn't disprove the idea that parties are a vital and useful part of a democratic system.
The second point to make is that, even if the first and second parties in a system do trade ideas with one another, that still doesn't make coalitions which exclude the second party especially democratic. In fact, it suggests that a coalition of the two major parties would be more democratic than including the third force (e.g., the Greens). I wouldn't be in favour of that either, though, since I think there are substantial differences between the two major parties in every political system I can think of which would make their working together difficult and lead them to dropping policies which they were elected to carry out. -
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
omotn
What a strange group of bedfellows!
Marat? Robespierre? Authors of the Terror who did not stop until they lost their own heads?
Chairman Mao? One of the most awful dictators of the 20th century responsible for the death of millions. They did not believe in the people. They believed they could speak for the people and decide for them what was right and wrong for the people. Blimey, if I woke up and found one of them as Mayor of Haringey, I would be doomed for a start because they certainly would not have allowed Harringay Online to exist.
If you are going to lead a revolution, be you a left wing dictator or someone leading your people to freedom, you don't stand as the Mayor. You mobilise your forces and bring down the very structures of power starting with the lopping off the head of the state (literally in some cases), you don't suggest that if only we had PR the people would be the masters now. The protestors in Tehran and China are fighting against the results of revolutions that were made in the name of the people.
I believe strongly in the right of the people to decide for themselves, sadly many of your examples did not.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
I'm also concerned about the rather wishy-washy level of 'consultation' that seems to be required under the new legislation. Previously you couldn't make this level change without having a referendum but this has now changed to the system we're discussing - it is up to the council following 'community consultation'. There is quite a good Wikipedia piece on this here .
Personally am not very convinced. As a number of others have said, I'd rather they sorted out a system whereby the cabinet is more reflective of the balance of counsellors. And that's before you even mention things like PR!! But I can see how a good and strong mayor could make a huge difference in an underperforming local council (a bit like a good head for a school I guess??). IPPR did some work on this and argued:
"By delivering high profile, well-known and visibly accountable leaders, mayors provide this much needed reassurance... With a mayor the public knows who is in charge and where the buck stops. In this respect mayors have the potential to make local government more accountable, and can therefore contribute significantly to the introduction of greater local autonomy." More here.
-
Permalink Reply by Adrian Hackney on
-
A reflection on the Kober era suggests that the Leader and Cabinet model may not be perfect.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Why not start a new thread, Adrian? It could be confusing to hitch a ride on a discussion thread eight/nine years ago. We are - I hope - in rather different times.
But thanks anyway for drawing attention to Mark Crouch End's contribution to Opinion8 which in turn offers to summarise Jon Lansman's thoughts.
Over the years I stopped wasting time on The New Statesman. But I'll have another try with this piece. Especially as I prefer to read first hand what someone writes.
I have the problem that I've no idea whether Kober's control freakery is or is not typical of Councils Leaders+cabinet-system. Or just an execption, a particularly closed-minded authoritarian way she chose to dominate and accrue power to herself and her obedient pals.
-
-
Anyone see the interesting article: "Talk is cheap: the myth of the focus group", by Liza Featherstone. It begins with focus groups but ends by raising fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and public consultation.
I'll admit to a bias in this topic. I am sceptical about the endless parade of leaders and world-be leaders who are always ready, strong and certain, to give us their vital message. They will remind, insist, and try to persuade us of the inevitability and essential normality of leaders. And therefore of followers.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
So it didn't surprise me when a number of Labour Council leaders recently signed a letter criticising the "anti-democratic" way Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) had called for mediation in Haringey. Plainly, the democracy they favour is where leaders such as themselves get to exercise power and call the shots.Yet another example of the relevance of the psychologist Abraham Maslow's remark about owning a hammer and then viewing every problem as a nail.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
