Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Comprehensive Spending Review - Resident Consultation
Below is a link to the resident consultation for the budget - the more response we get on this the better to get over residents views.
From Cllr Kober
"As we all know the Comprehensive Spending Review will mean we have to consider carefully the services we provide. We are keen that we are well informed about the views of residents and members as we make difficult decisions and agree a very challenging budget.
To help us gather this information we have begun a consultation which will allow residents to tell us what is most important to them. Although many of you will already be involved in the budget setting process, I hope you will all complete the survey and encourage as many residents as you can to do the same."
The survey can be accessed at http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/council/haveyoursay.htm
Thanks
Cllr Karen Alexander
From Cllr Kober
"As we all know the Comprehensive Spending Review will mean we have to consider carefully the services we provide. We are keen that we are well informed about the views of residents and members as we make difficult decisions and agree a very challenging budget.
To help us gather this information we have begun a consultation which will allow residents to tell us what is most important to them. Although many of you will already be involved in the budget setting process, I hope you will all complete the survey and encourage as many residents as you can to do the same."
The survey can be accessed at http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/council/haveyoursay.htm
Thanks
Cllr Karen Alexander
Tags for Forum Posts: consultation, public spending cuts
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
But it's still nonsense, isn't it? I think my estimate of 95% of the LBH Governance survey not being about governance was about right. Why stop at 95%? There are unlimited questions you can ask about someone's status against which they might be discriminated.
For example, the council normally translates loads of bumpf into umpteen languages (mostly a waste of time and money). If for the sake of argument, they translate document X into 10 languages, and only 10 languages, does it then follow that all the speakers of the 11th language (and the 12th etc) are being discriminated against. Where does it end? Where has judgement gone?
Many council consultations are farcical and insincere in any event, even without pointless questions like Does you Gender differ from your birth sex? If the only explanation is a legalistic one, then the law needs changing.
Someone somewhere has lost sight of sense, reason and perspective. The tail is wagging the dog! The Governance Survey was actually important, but the original question asked was lost, forgotten and became incidental amongst the the quantity of nonsensical data sought about the respondent.
The opinions on governance were diminished. But the mountain of data about respondents must involve a lot of bureaucrats keeping each other busy. All sense of proportion was lost. I hope a scythe is taken to this sort of nonsense, not least because it must be wasting a lot of money. Are not council tax payers being discriminated against by the cost of this make-work?
.
-
Permalink Reply by Inkjetpack on
-
Clive,
Do I think that its nonsense that all sectors of the community have access to the services I help provide? No. It is my duty to ensure that if there is sufficient demand, we provide appropriate delivery if justified. Would you complain about the provision of this type of information in large print or Braille for visually impaired users?
Is there a wider discussion to be had around personal responsibility, the role of the individual within the community and the role of the state? Certainly, but it is not going to happen until there is honesty on all sides in the [political] discourse.
It may surprise you, but most public services in this country are run on a business footing. If I can’t justify running a service I close it, the major difference between us and the private sector is that our metrics cover both tangible and intangible benefits, not just the bottom line. My personal experience is at a national rather than a local level, but I’m sure it is the same.
Do I think whether there is sufficient challenge to some of these conventions by public service providers, no more needs to be done. The problem regarding the legal system in this country is that it is based on case law which is often the first opportunity to clarify poorly drafted, compromised and often contradictory Act’s of Parliament. This can lead to a risk adverse culture within public bodies that is often compounded by distorted [press] attacks from the very same MP’s who were responsible for drafting the law in the first place.
If you want to improve this situation make sure your MP is working full time for you, their employer; scrutinising legislation, holding public bodies and the executive to account.
-
-
Inkjet:
If I can’t justify running a service I close it
I appreciate your contribution as I now better understand what is meant by the "bubble" that is said to exist at River Park House, which separates its occupants from the outside world. I don't know who you are or what role you play as you hide behind an anonymous moniker. I do know that you are unfair and unreasonable when you equate the provision of services to the blind with ridiculous questions about one's gender differing from one's birth sex, this, in a survey about council governance!
There is no limit to the questions you can ask about respondents. It is clear to me, if not to you, that a sense of perspective has been lost.
Businesses are rightly interested in feedback from their customers but they normally do not quizz them to the point of irritation.
Last year's on-line survey about Council Governance was one of the worst of its type. There was a small section where one could give an opinion about leader/cabinet models of governance, but 95% of the questions related to the respondent.
The online survey was ittle publicised. Initially, the council was going through the motions with this survey, doubtless fulfilling some legal requirement with no great interest in the public's opinion on governance. But when it came to questions about the respondent, the bureaucrats went about it with a will.
If in a survey it is good to have 95% of the questions about the respondent's personal status, why not 98%? We can see how this has led to a situation where council staff are keeping each other busy, mounting more ridiculous surveys where the original intention becomes incidental and forgotten.
It leads to a situation of a loss of respect and confidence and breeds cynicism.
I am more convinced that council employees, cannot see the waste of taxpayers' money that they have gradually built up around them. Council staff will never admit to waste because they are not able to see it, they are inured to it. Is this why Haringey has been singled out for deeper cuts than other councils? It is a pity it has come to this as there are some council services that I put a high value on and I fear that the baby may be thrown out with the bath water.
.
.
-
-
Hi Clive,
I think you’ve raised some interesting points for further exploration and explanation. I’m not here to defend local practise, and have had limited personal experience with Haringey – at this point it would be helpful if one of the local councillors/officers would engage with both the original CSR discussion and this one.
Having a very quick look on their website, they do have dedicated pages which explain their policies and how they use the information in this area: http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/council/how_the_council_works/equa.... They also appear to have a review group made up of volunteers, as you feel so strongly about this issue why don’t you see if you can join?
I agree with you that lazy or sloppy implementation/execution of any policy can be counterproductive. Where I strongly disagree with you though, is in your generalisation that public sector workers wilfully waste money, after all it is our taxes too! Most of the people who I know work very hard to maximise value for money [when they’re not too busy gold plating their pensions that is].
This type of generalisation about public sector waste in itself is lazy; it is often advanced by groups and people with a vested interest in a smaller state for ideology reasons – look at who funds and controls groups such as the Taxpayers Alliance. If you come across real examples of waste report it, we investigate all complaints we receive, have to publish them in our KPI’s and these directly affect our government funding.
-
-
Injetpack:
I'm not a member of the taxpayers alliance, I'm just a local taxpayer who makes little demands on services. I am aware of how much cash goes into LBH and by contrast, how much comes out by the way of services – and how some valuable services are starved of cash through poor prioritisation. Your own responses also raise points:
we investigate all complaints we receive
Who is this "we"? It is hard to guess what you are talking about when you are anonymous!
It is my duty to ensure that if there is sufficient demand, we provide appropriate delivery if justified
Who are you, whose duty it is? Who defines your duty and who do you owe it to? Again, who is "we"?
If I can’t justify running a service I close it ...
What, just you? Justify to who? What services? What is your role exactly? I'm surprised that you claim such power and influence. Even if you are one of:
Council Chief Executive
A Permanent Secretary
Home Secretary
Council Leader
... these individuals do not possess such *personal* power, not without consulting others. Of course, if I chose to remain anonymous I could imply I was Barack Obama. Are your claims to personal power perhaps an insight into the arrogance of some public service "officers" rather than actual control?
Despite your claims of power and influence, it seems to me that that the system is now out of control.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Felt exactly the same about that question Alison, but the bigger issue for me is the overall structure. People are being asked, in effect, to choose spending priorities across a whole range of options. Yet the questionnaire style doesn't allow or requite the user to make choices. How would rating/ranking behaviour change once choices become mutually exclusive?
There are some tough spending choices. It seems to me that the newer tools that are available help both underline the difficult of the choices to be made and force people to make real choices between options.
-
-
Karen can you explain how the results of this survey will be interpreted, disseminated and actioned by the council please?
My assumption is that the council will prioritise the services it has a legal obligation to fulfil and then refer to the main priorities in its business plan/strategy for any remaining funding – will my answers change this priority order?
What I don’t think has been made clear is that due to the level of cuts to come, the council will have to vastly reduce the scope of any [discretionary] spending – this isn’t tinkering at the edges, wholesale change is on the cards. In effect it is the Americanisation of public services in the UK which will completely change its ethos forever – the big society? No society, but a collection of individuals with common interests?
I work for a NDPB which is being retained as part the CSR. We have already gone through this exercise, as you are now, after being directed to do so by central government. The outcome of this [public relations] survey will not change the fact that services will be reduced to the bare legal minimum to provide space for business to supposedly expand into the vacuum.
Plans for reductions in spending were well advanced prior to the last general election, we had already been instructed by the Treasury more than a year beforehand to model for at least 25% cuts in our budget post election. During the campaigning no political party would discuss post election spending plans; I believe this disenfranchised me and was an abuse of the parliamentary system.
I think a lot of people will be stunned when they realise what they’ll get on the 20th October. Let’s hope that there remain enough of us left, who were brought up with the notion of putting the good of society first, to man the barricades.
-
-
"The outcome of this [public relations] survey will not change the fact that services will be reduced to the bare legal minimum to provide space for business to supposedly expand into the vacuum."
Nail, head, boink!
-
-
I started to complete the survey, trying to give my honest opinion. Then about half way through I got so angry with it I gave up. Alison's point is spot on.
I was alarmed to see included a question about possible cuts to library services and yet nowhere included were questions about areas of known waste in the council, such as their propaganda department (Haringey People magazine etc.). We can all think of ways LBH could be run better and yet this survey implies that there is not the slightest area of inefficiency. We're led to believe it's all at the bone already and there's no fat. I do not believe it!
Haringey will never admit to waste and least of all in a survey like this, whose purposes are clear. It's tendentious and intended to yield a particular result for the council, in order that that result can be waved at central government. I'm not sure it will do any good.
The London Borough of Haringey seems to have been singled out for higher spending cuts than other Boroughs. Does central government know more about waste at our council than we do?
At a recent Area Assembly meeting (Tottenham) I watched the Executive Cabinet member do his Powerpoint road-show where figures were bandied out fairly wildly. But he did give a clue as to how the council might proceed. He claimed that cuts would come from the centre first (River Park house etc.) and leave the periphery, front-line services, till last. I hope that this is in fact the way cuts will be carried out.
But past observation tells me that that is unlikely. Highly paid bureaucrats are probably harder to cut, for example, than staff in branch libraries, plus the former cut would not be high profile. The council may like to make cuts as visible as possible for political reasons but I hope they can rise above that.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
I have just had an (impressively speedy) reply from Claire Kober saying a number of people had commented on the ambiguity of the first question and they are in the process of changing it. She did not respond to a comment I made about the fundamental structure of the question (Hugh's point).
-
-
Now that the Chilean Rescue effort has reached rock bottom, shouldn't the Santiago government get in touch with Claire Kober to help them conduct a two-month Haringey-style Consultation among the 33 miners and their families before proceeding further? The identity, ethnicity, linguistic profile, gender, birth status, orientation or disorientation of 33 alleged Chilean males under the Atacama Desert cannot be taken for granted. If Santiago can contact Claire over the weekend a team of River Park experts could fly out by mid-week, prepare the consultation, begin administering it by next weekend, check results over Christmas/New Year and have most of the miners worthy of rescue out by mid-February.
-
-
OAE: good out-of-the-mine thinking. But like some Haringey residents, the miners may struggle with what best describes your language and what best describes your gender; what best describes your religion, ethnicity, sexuality, grandparents' sexual orientation etc.
Was Churchill addressing recalcitrant consultation-survey responders when he challenged, you do your worst and we will do our best?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
