Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Time to abolish Haringey Council?
In all the scandals that have befallen the borough on behalf of our incompetent council over the last forty years, surely we need to accept that it is beyond saving.... and abolish our local authority?
Every time I read the local media, they contain yet repeated allegations of mismanagement and incompetence. Nothing ever happens in Haringey unless it is bad. Our schools are failing, our council homes are crumbling, our streets are dirty, our youths are repeatedly ignored.
If there was a campaign to abolish Haringey Council, I would support it.... subject to an Act of Parliament and a public referendum vote in favour. Then the borough's assets could be sold off or transferred to neighbouring councils.
The likes of Harringay Online and others who have a genuine axe to grind could set the ball rolling by setting an e-petition and set up such a campaign. Ask our local MP David Lammy to get involved, he may be persuaded.
Like many here, I am sick and tired of the increasingly useless policies coming out of the Civic Centre, and is prepared to consider wanting to see my part of the borough governed properly by another council.
(Let me remind you that this post is slightly tongue-in-cheek)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
Alan, I have nothing but admiration for council staff who, against all the odds, aim to deliver the best service possible in the face of the constant lack of leadership and contempt shown for their professionalism by both senior councillors, and indeed some officers. However, it is getting increasingly difficult to get through to the council even on the most basic enquiries, and to my mind there hasn't been any effort to change that. That is why we need to look at changing the way public services are delivered in the borough... even if it leads to the council being abolished.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Back to the original premise! Looking at London as a whole, are 33 councils really sustainable? It's not that unthinkable that in a few years time London will be a small collection of super boroughs, perhaps central, north, south, east and west. Doing this is the tricky part.
The much lorded tri-borough (Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster) has been a damp squib at best and a waste of money at worst. Even small steps like Camden and Islington sharing a Chief Executive was a wash out. The boundaries of most London borough are party political, so most are of a predictable colour, which makes cross borough agreement difficult to achieve, so the only way it will happen is by central government diktat.
I don't think an abolition petition would do one bit of good because the take over borough would have to want to do the take over and who might that be? Hackney? Islington? Enfield? Can you really see any of them rushing to take up the reins?
Surely the solution is one we already have in our hands, local democracy and holding our elected representatives to account while in office.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Neville I forgot to add in my post above, thanks for beginning this provocative-but-needed thread.
It was little surprise that Alan would seek to have you, as it were, unthink the unthinkable!
"Abolish" is a bit sensational, but there it does seem to me that there are chronic deep-seated problems with our Borough's administration that aren't being addressed seriously. And therefore, radical solutions do need to be considered. The Borough boundaries make no sense.
The Borough often seems to lurch from one crisis to another. The main response is trying harder, doubling down and exerting maximum effort ... in PR. This was the impression I gained from comments made by the former chief executive Ita O'Donovan in the wake of Baby P.
Another impression I have, is that the council spends too much time talking to itself and to other councils, rather than with the public who pay for them, and this leads to excess and unjustified self-belief. I would cite is the amount of mutual awarding and self-congratulation that goes on.
Radical change is only going to be possible in the long term, and I've no doubt that Michael (above) is right when he says it would come from central government. The "diktat" he mentions is probably the only realistic hope in the long run.
-
-
I'm replying mainly to push this up as it is a debate worth having.
If Haringey ceased to exist what would take it's place?
How would we be involved?
Who would decide on the best solution?
Would smaller solutions work like the mooted parish councils in Mayfair and Queens Park?
Would we put in the time and effort that would be needed to make something new happen?
The Localism Act puts all of this within our reach. Who will pick up the torch?
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
I'm not sure I approve..
Increasing the amount of councils may well give more local accountabilty, but at the same time no doubt increase the costs of local government.. Apart from that, these little fiefdoms have nothing in common with a modern 'world city' (yukky term), which needs more co-ordinated planning.
IMO, London needs more London-wide services and certainly not less.. ie. refuse collectors etc.,
The tories under Thachter promised council tenants that they could paint their council house doors whatever colour they wanted (not previously allowed by councils) - Now they are promising them to have their lamp posts painted whatever colour each new local council wants.
It's just the same old British class based idea of exclusivity. Back in the 70s it was a mistake and benefited only the upwardly mobile. IMO it will be a disaster now too and the poorer areas (like Harringay - or worse Tottenham) will certainly loose out.
-
-
Stephen I agree about the need for more London-wide services: there are a host of services apart from rubbish collection that would more efficiently be organised at city level.
Increasing the amount of councils
But you appear not to have read the original post. While you may or may not be right about the merits of having more councils, that is not what Neville wrote:
the borough's assets could be sold off or transferred to neighbouring councils
I think its hard to read that as increasing the amount of councils. Call me old fashioned, but I read that as implying a reduction in the number of councils – by one.
(For Alan: sorry, I know this is tantamount to sacrilege).
-
Permalink Reply by matthew cuthbert on
-
Best practice isn't that hard to find, and surely cheaper than a wholesale,
I dont mind sharing my knowledge to councillors, I always enjoy seeing them.
I feel that way I'm doing my job, I don't have to be in opposition if they're doing it all,
pushing flesh, listening to concerns and ideas from local people, connecting people, being open,
being seen regularly on the street....
We could tag some issues, with out chewing out each others ears:
How far do our council professionals have to travel to work?, The Councils travel plan, the BBC has one.
What proportion of workers live locally?
Where do our children's meals come from-JJ's in Enfield? Eagles?, sadly not Green lanes why?
Is there a bottom up coulture in each department or Hierarchy?, (that front level staff complain about?)
Would St Ann's make a great site for a secondary school/night adult education TAFE (Technical and further Education.) NCT Polyclinic with fit for purpose vacilities + NCT employment site.
I know there is Downhills Academy, but our kids are still being farmed out of the borough from age 11,
London's population growth from 2005 is expected equal the size of Birmingham by 2020, so sites like White City, St Ann's when they become available, need to be scrutinized for future framework for growth which is difficult and massively expensive to retrofit.
HOL will give some definite responses...
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
