Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Councillor Stanton Sent into Wilderness by Local Labour Group
The Labour whip was withdrawn from long serving Tottenham councillor, Alan Stanton last night.
A meeting of the local Haringey Council Labour group last night took the rarely used step of withdrawing the whip from one of its longest serving councillors. The official reason given was Councillor Stanton's voting in opposition to the appointment of new Council Chief Executive, Nick Walkley.
The action was taken by the Labour political group on the Council. It's party business, rather than official council business. However, I do wonder at the meaning of that distinction; when it's a decision by the ruling group over the issue of the appointment of the Council boss, it seems barely relevant to draw a line between the two.
Being deprived of the whip cuts a concillor off from the party’s support machine, labels them as a bad boy, and can lead to their being deselected as the party’s candidate for the next election. It's the grown up political equivalent of playground kids sending someone to Coventry.
So that must be awful for a serious councillor like Alan Stanton with fifteen years of office behind him, right? Wrong. Stanton made clear how he felt about it at 3:00AM this morning on Twitter:
Kober threw me in the briar patch. This is really gonna be fun!
— Alan Stanton (@AlanStanton_) December 7, 2012
(For those of you less familiar with Uncle Remus, Stanton's briar patch refers to an apparently awful thicket into which clever B'rer Rabbit tricked Bre’r Fox throwing him and from which he quickly escaped to make more mischief.)
In conversation with Alan, some hours before the briar patch tweet, Alan told me, "I'm so disillusioned with the level of secrecy in the local party, the need to control from the top, that I'm glad to be out of it".
The current censure applies to Alan for three months. Whist it's by no means certain whether the party want the independent minded Tottenham Councillor back amongst their number when that time is up, this Councillor is certainly not for turning. Alan told me, "No, I won't reapply to rejoin the Labour group that's enough for me." Their loss I'd say. Independent minded he may be, but he's a politician who is a serious thinker and has his heart in the right place. I have to question where a party who doesn't have room for someone like Alan is headed.
As for Alan's future, he has a big agenda he wants to get his teeth into with the big issues around making Tottenham a better place to live, short of simply allowing it to gentrify. He seems to think the chances of his serving as a councillor again are slim though since he sees little chance of an independent councillor ever being elected in his neighbourhood.
Let's not bid farewell to Alan yet, though. This is after all a rabbit that lives by its wits.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by dont want to give name on
-
Liz,your arguments are logically flawed.But it's not "pertinent" as you say to derail the thread,so I can't reply much for fear of having the whip withdrawn so to speak.I'm not a supporter of Labour I'm a tory voter,I'm not bothered if Mr Stanton agrees with my views or not.It's the principle of the thing.I couldn't care less what the local tories think.It's an affront to common sense to put women of child bearing age into a small business as businessmen know.To say its misogyny which means women hating is over emotional talk.Women dont employ women of child bearing age in their small businesses they arent misogynists they are realists yes its sexist discrimination which you claim is wrong but do you run your own business? but business people and private sector discrimate all the time because it saves time and money.Public sector waste money as it's not their money so they can be as politically correct as they like.With disasterous consequences with regard to baby P making Haringey Council look like the worst council in the uk.Funny how they are only politically correct when it suits them though.Discriminating against Mr Stanton just because he thinks they are cr-p at decision making and critising them on twitter.Too many public sector workers havent got a clue about the real world.Liz for someone who doesnt like derailing threads you are making a good job of diverting the discussion to wimmins rights or whatever.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
No, I'm making it clear, DWGN, that I think you are a misogynist.
I know the law governing discrimination and it applies to small businesses the same as everyone else.
If you do run a small business and you are discriminating against women in this way, you could end up at tribunal. I take it you don't actually tell female applicants for your jobs that you can't employ them in case they have kids. I'm sure you're sufficiently aware of the laws against discrimination to know that that would land you in court. I'm not surprised you don't want to give your name.
All your other baiting such as use of the word 'wimmin' is just what we would expect. If Cllr Kober should read your comments, she'll know exactly where to file them, as do I.
-
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Oh God ! It's the " raging hormones " smear again.
Please don't emphasise the " Tory voter " line again otherwise I might have to distance myself from you and vote Liberal, or even Labour next time
-
-
Aren't I entitled to an opinion without a woman calling me misogynist ?
Thanks for that John D. It was bit of smear wasn't it! Fair comment Ed.
Liz you are coming across as the leader writer for The Daily Mail (a great paper).You are making alot of assumptions without any real evidence with your misogynist comments.I think Liz you are being a bit of a silly girl,go and do some household chores or some cleaning and stick the kettle on will you love.Thanks.
But I am not going to make any more comments about wimmin as Liz is now not following her own advice and distracting from Mr Stantons thread,very bad etiquette on HOL I am afraid.Please behave Liz.
Back to an important and serious point of principle.
About the hypocrisy of Haringey Labour to discriminate against Mr Stanton even though they reckon discrimination is bad innit.innit.
A perceptive woman did call me sid the sexist the other day.And she was annoyed when I agreed with her.
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
@Alan:
"I was told that Sir Stuart Lipton sent a draft of his report to Claire Kober and some other "cabinet" councillors at the beginning of November. I asked for a copy. Not just because I am a ward councillor for Tottenham Hale, one of the wards most affected by the Tottenham Riot. Nor because I was a Labour councillor. Nor because Zena Brabazon and I live a few minutes walk from where the riot took place.
It is because the Riot and the Report is of deep concern to every Haringey elected councillor. And because I believe that all Haringey councillors have should have had an opportunity to read and comment on the report in progress - if necessary challenging and suggesting changes and improvements."
Sorry, councillors should have NEVER receive draft copies of the report. They should only get access AFTER it was published and in the public domain. We should have been able to see Cllr Kober and her cabinet squirm and try to spin their way out of any criticisms of their policies.
The report doesn't deal with the fact that the biggest obstacle to Tottenham's regeneration is the Council itself. With a few exceptions, there hasn't been any real scrutiny of the borough's regeneration programme. The Council thinks that bringing in the private sector will resolve all of the problems which have been built up for years, forgetting that because of their policies, such investment collapsed a long time ago. As the former owner of Paradise Gems jewellery store, destroyed in last year's riots, commented this week, who in their right mind would any want to invest in Tottenham? If I wanted to set up a business, I would stay well clear.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Neville, to be clear I'm not suggesting the Council and councillors shouldn't be criticised by outsiders. Nor that Claire Kober, me or anyone else should be able to restrict or censor someone's report.
But, if I was writing a report about problems in an area, and it seemed to me that a major issue was the governance of that area I'd take care to seek out - or at least to properly invite and pay attention to views from a large number of elected councillors.
More generally, I'd think it was an excellent idea to talk to as wide a range of people as possible - including very many people living or working in that area.
More vital, if I was a big cheese appointed by the Mayor of London and thought that my work and conclusions were likely to be taken extremely seriously, I'd have tried to open up my emerging thoughts and ideas for debate and discussion before publishing the glossy final version.
As fellow Tottenham residents don't you think you and I should be insisting that other people discuss and plan the future of our neighbourhood in dialogue with us. Rather than in private closed meetings in appointed Boards and Commissions to talk and make decisions about us. Whether Lipton or Kober we are dealing with people who treat us as a colony. It's making mock of democracy.
By the way, you'll find that at the end of his report, Sir Stuart Lipton thanks people for: "giving so generously of their time, and for their warm welcomes, support, insight and enthusiasm over the course of the past 12 months." Those listed include my partner Cllr Zena Brabazon and Bruce Grove councillor Stuart McNamara. Zena tells me she remembers only a question she asked at a public meeting when Iain Duncan Smith came to Rev. Nim's Obunge's church in the former Tottenham Town Hall. Sir Stuart Lipton was on a panel. Stuart McNamara recalls making a few comments as one of several people who were standing around Sir Stuart Lipton after the same meeting.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
The report doesn't deal with the fact that the biggest obstacle to Tottenham's regeneration is the Council itself. With a few exceptions, there hasn't been any real scrutiny of the borough's regeneration programme.
Neville:
Whose report is it to be? What is the best way to ensure it is of value? Surely councillors who are local to the area should have an opportunity to give some input?
I'm not entirely sure which report we're talking about. If it's A Plan for Tottenham, I have only looked through that briefly – part of it seems to be a prospectus for the developer Grainger. I am aware of course, that the proposed Wards Corner development is misconceived. But I don't live in Tottenham and am not as familiar with the issues as others.
The glossy APFT report contained, as is Haringey's want, much fluff and empty-but-expensive PR phrases that appeared aimed at sounding nice. PR is used reflexively nowadays and I don't think they know how to tell it straight.
One of the bullet points is Confident Communities.
But how much confidence can there be? Haven't we been here before ?
The last government put £100m into Tottenham over 10 years via the Bridge NDC that was controlled by the local council. Where did it all go? What is there to show for such a big spend? Thanks to a leaked investigation of some years ago, we do know that some of this huge sum was given out for an unknown number of personal projects, with a value of up to £25,000, without any documentation whatseover. It was wide open to fraud, but no one is responsible, of course.
Can I suggest that, if you disagree with the council's official report, that you or Alan or someone else writes an alternative?
I don't mean a spoof or a sarcastic one, but a genuine alternative that others – such as the media and public – are then able to compare with the council's official goals for Tottenham?
-
-
Clive, Sir Stuart Lipton isn't a "council official". He is a property developer. He was appointed by Boris Johnson.
NDC personal grants? I've no idea what you mean. Do send me the report. it wasn't leaked in my direction. Whatever criticisms people had of the Bridge New Deal for Communities project (NDC) it had an elected Board of local residents.
BTW - The sum involved was £50 million. (not £100m) Please let's get some basic facts right.
-
-
I don't think I described Stuart Lipton as a council official, I did describe the glossy "A Plan for Tottenham" as a council report - it has council contact details on the last page.
The internal enquiry into the NDC was leaked to the now demised Hornsey/Tottenham Journal where it made front page news some years ago. I'm a bit surprised you weren't aware of it. It made shocking reading at the time. I don't have a copy but I'll make enquiries.
Yes, you are right about the (base) sum involved being £50 million (£49,983,805) and not £100m.
However we may be able to split the difference: together with matched funding of £27,113,883, the total 'Lifetime Project Spend' spend comes to £77,097,688.
All these sums are huge.
The glossy booklet put out at the end seems to put a gloss on a number of things (it's so glossy that it's 11 megabytes which is too big to attach as a file here).
-
-
Well please accept my apology Clive for confusing which of four different reports you were commenting on.
If you'd like to give me a date for the Hornsey Journal I'll look up its archive. But as you plan to "make inquiries" maybe you can get me a copy of the leaked internal report relating to the NDC. I much prefer to read original documents rather than someone's edited selection.
-
-
Yes Alan there is a multiplicity of glossy reports.
I have inadvertently added to the confusion by my last sentence that was partly penned before I realised the attempted file attachment was too big. The figures I quoted in the body come from a 58-page document, containing mainly photos, titled Bridge NDC 10 years of achievement 2001—2011.
I could email it to you if you wish.
I was surprised to see the glossy brochure may have been sponsored by Carlsberg as the last page shows a photo of a bridge and a Carlsberg truck with the legend "probably the best bridge in the world".
The Appendix lists disbursements. I wonder if you remember that the management of this outfit has come under criticism in the past? Including the resignation of Cllr. Isidoros Diakidies from the Board?
Was the forensic accounting exercise called for by some in order to identify the money that was unaccounted for, ever undertaken?
-
-
Clive, I have paid Sir Stuart Lipton the respect of reading his report carefully and I am continuing to think about it at length and discuss it with others.
And without mixing it up with other reports. Although of course I accept that thinking about regeneration in Tottenham should include evaluation of previous schemes.
Thanks for your kind offer to post me a copy of the final NDC report. Though I'm sure I can find it somewhere on the net. But actually I don't need glossy PR. I can get the bus to Seven Sisters and see for myself many of the projects the money was spent on. Such as the Laurels Health Centre, The Triangle Children's Centre; St Ann's Library Hall, Housing Group Repair Schemes; works on Tiverton and Frederick Messer Estates etc etc etc.
Like all the New Deal local Boards across the country it was an experiment. Like all experiments I'm sure the Bridge NDC had its failings as well as its successes. As I wrote before, if you have leaked reports you want me to read, do send them. Although I prefer to focus on the real and present problems in Tottenham. Not what may or may not have happened years ago.
We have hungry wolves eyeing-up our neighbourhood. Re-imagine the story of the three little pigs standing outside the brick house arguing over who sent who a Christmas Card ten years before; or why somebody was or wasn't invited to their piglets' birthday parties.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
