Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Neighbourhood Forum
Out of interest, has anyone got the ball rolling to create a Harringay Neighbourhood Forum in line with the Localism Act? Or perhaps an existing organisation is putting itself forward for the role (as the Highgate Society are doing)? There are a couple of such initiatives west of the tracks, and I'm curious who else is doing so locally.
Ben
Tags for Forum Posts: neighbourhood forum, neighbourhood planning
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I'd like to second your sentiments Phil, we should look at the individual. People willing to stomp all over their principles for a "leader's" narrow interpretation of their party's rules and their patronage in gaining selection as a candidate in a local election should be avoided at all costs. They will not represent the electorate, they will be there as a cog in the party machine that is beholden to the leader.
Chris, I want to see you condem wholeheartedly the skullduggery that went on in St Ann's and I'd like to see everyone in the Labour Party in Haringey take a long hard look at how they take advantage of their own selection process, sometimes even cheating.
I doubt either of those things will happen.
Honesty and integrity in politics FIRST, policy SECOND.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Sorry John - I thought it obvious from my specific expression of gratitude and support when we last met (at HoL drinks) that I totally support what you are doing over St Anns.
I condemn wholeheartedly the skullduggery that went on in St Ann's.
I want the St Ann's selection re-run properly. I think the honourable thing for the candidates whose selection is criticised to do is to withdraw. They were not properly selected. I want the selection process improved so that this sort of thing can never happen again. I want all the data to be online and open to scrutiny.
I want the "culture" of selection to be changed. I want the process of challenge to be made easier. I want every selection meeting to be streamed live online. The Labour party have lost the right to do things in secret.
I am just an ordinary person and have no power, but if I feel like this I guess many others will too.
Just to repeat: you have done us all a big favour here - thanks.
-
-
Oh Chris. I am so pleased that you wrote that on here and yes, I know what your thoughts on the matter are, expressed to me in confidence which I am learning to keep. I would write "I love you" but this just isn't that kind of website.
See people, a normal member of the Labour Party in London knows what went on in St Ann's and can bring themselves to acknowledge it online.
-
-
Well this is the kind of website we want it to be.
I love you too John.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Chris, I'm touched and impressed by your unequivical and principled stand on this. And not just because Zena Brabazon (now my wife) is one of the deselected councillors. But because I was beginning to despair of Labour councillors and some ordinary Labour members speaking-up and speaking out in this way.
I've been thinking about some things Laura Bates said in an interview with Decca Aitkenhead. For people who haven't heard of her, Laura is the founder of the Everyday Sexism Project: "which exists to catalogue instances of sexism experienced by women on a day to day basis."
I've pointed out on HoL that a central issue in the Rennard scandal was the strong feelings of party loyalty which prevented LibDem insiders speaking out.
Though the St Anns selection issue isn't sexual harassment, there seems to be a view in Haringey Labour that party unity is more important than honest, open discussion about what happened there. That loyalty trumps morality.
Laura Bates speaks of a "weird disconnect" . She uses the word "weird" several times to describe arguments which try to trivialise sexual harassment at work - because they are "minor"; and more serious things are happening.
The St Ann's vote-rigging scandal isn't about sexism. But a similar sort of "weird disconnect" is at work in some people's minds.
Party aparatchiks pretended that a full and proper investigation was done - when it wasn't. Other people repeated the lie. And anyway, aren't there more important things to worry about? An election to fight. So why make waves?
Signing-up people who don't live where they say they do? Who are on the Electoral Register in another part of London? Who claim to be unwaged when they run businesses? Organised Entryism? Sure, it all happens. But it's not that big a deal. What's a minor bit of vote-rigging among party comrades? Besides, it's happened in several places and not just Haringey. Come on, aren't you making a fuss about nothing?
Laura Bates told Decca Aitkenhead. "... what you are actually saying is that to be involved in shaping the policies of this country you must be prepared to be groped in the workplace. Well, that's weird."
In a similar way, the Labour Party is saying to its members, councillors and potential councillors, that to be involved in shaping the policies of this council you must be prepared to put up with and turn a blind eye to vote-rigging and rule-breaking in the selection process. (And who knows where else?) Well, I think that's pretty weird, too.
So well done Chris Setz. A shame you're not one of Labour's candidates.
Before the election on 22 May we'll find out who agrees with you. And who's still doing the la-la-la-la see-no-evil, hear-no-evil routine. Which candidates have a backbone and moral compass. And who doesn't and has no place whatsoever in public life.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Chris, although we may disagree on many other matters, I do welcome your statement about the murky dealings at St. Ann's and how it could be corrected.
What transpired casts an unflattering light on all politics.
I don't have as much influence over the local Labour Party as I would like, so, if you possess sway or leverage with them, can I ask you to consider encouraging them to do the right thing?
--
One day I'll buy Mr McMullan a litre of Speight's Gold* at the Waikanae Tavern. (*recommended for medicinal purposes after every Shark attack, by an NZ medical professional).
-
-
I don't agree with a lot of Labour policy but it doesn't really matter what I think.
When I vote, I have to accept a lot of stuff I don't like along with the stuff I do. It isn't the best system, but its the one we have got.
I agree that the good candidates are harmed by the bad stuff happening on their patch but you seem to be making a protest vote.
>>Local body politics ought not to be about these imaginary party values. It is about the people.
Whatever it is supposed to be about, it has failed. Local people stay away in droves. That measure (turnout) is surely the principal one. So what does that mean for your idea that it is "about the people"?
The problem may be that there are a lot of people with opinions as to what "ought" to happen but unable to convince. In other words, while people can not be bothered to even vote, we can never have a political consensus.
If you want politics to be stronger, the best thing you can surely do is help create a political consensus.
-
Permalink Reply by Arkady on
-
“the Coalition has harmed them significantly more than Labour.”
You have a tendency to make unsupported statements.
What ‘racist’ things have the Lib Dems done to Romanians and Bulgarians (neither of which is a race, incidentally)? Was it insisting that the Conservatives honour our commitments to Freedom of Movement?
Pluralism: I’m referring to political pluralism. I prefer mature multi-party democracies to ossified two-party systems. The latter tend towards failed binary logic, divisiveness and tribalism.
Coalition: Nobody votes for a coalition per se, they vote for their MP, and if no-one party has a majority then coalition it is, just like in nearly every democracy in the world. The 2/3rds of voters (themselves representing only 2/3rds of the electorate) who did not vote for Labour in 2005 did not vote for a Labour majority either, but that’s what they got. They also got a far more divided and dysfunctional government than the one they have now.
In mature democracies, it is seen as the primary responsibility of the political parties to form a stable coalition representing over 50% of voters. Minority parties get to punch slightly above their weight, but it is still recognised that they won’t get their own way on everything, and the largest party will retain a dominant influence. My German friends are somewhat nonplussed by the curious rhetoric about ‘enablers’ and ‘collaborators’ coming from the unsophisticated tribalists of the UK. Maybe if you took a step back for a moment then you would too.
Your ‘don’t vote for a party that can’t win’ is both wrong and intellectually bankrupt. First, the Lib Dems came very close to winning control of Haringey in 2010 (it was a 26/30 split). Nationally, many commentators continue to predict another hung parliament, as well you know. Thirdly, at the turn of the last century many Liberals made exactly the same argument you are making, insisting that progressives shouldn’t vote Labour because they could not win. Look how that worked out.
-
-
Thanks Arkady - I am enjoying this to and fro and hope you are too! You write so clearly that I am spending far too much time replying when I should be doing other stuff - typically self-indulgent of me. I want to have a reasoned discussion with people who disagree as I expect to learn from it and hope we are both open to learn and to change.
The Lib Dems claim that they are doing good within the Coalition is hard to accept when you disavow anything your partners do on your joint behalf. The meme is that you are puppies looked after by the Tories - you know that, right?
To the victims of ConDem policies here in Haringey, the Lib Dems blaming the Tories for the bad stuff is a lie they can see through. The problem is that people do not trust politicians so what makes you think we will trust the Lib Dems claim "not our fault"? You will surely accept that it is reasonable to expect that, given the low esteem people hold politicians in, that the Lib Dems are not believed. People see them in the same light as they see all politicians. They blame the coalition for coalition policies - they don't think "ah, that was the nasty party, the Lib Dems are not like that". Bet most of them could not name, for instance, whose policy the bedroom tax or the mansion tax is. They just know that the bedroom tax is a tax on those who can least afford it and the mansion tax a tax on those who can most afford it.
One difference they are aware of is that many people are frightened to death because of the Bedroom Tax and some suicides have resulted. Labour will repeal it. The ConDems wont.
I know you do have policies, but I can not bring any to mind and neither can most people (except Tuition Fees). The Lib Dems are not the Lib Dems, they are the ConDems to almost everyone, me included.
>>What ‘racist’ things have the Lib Dems done
The whole atmosphere seems racist to me - remember the "Go Home" messages on the Vans? With the ConDems Home Office drawing up plans to combat the flood of Romanians and Bulgarians, why did MPs waiting at Heathrow see so few Romanians and Bulgarian immigrants on the planes? There were none who I wouldn't be pleased to see in my home. What an appalling insult we deliver those fine counties, with their great people and strong cultures.It is what the ConDems seem to want to do to anyone who is not born before the War, white, middle class and well off - kick them out, back to "where they come from". It is part of that same nastiness that promotes lies about "benefit scroungers" whilst the truth is that there are hardly any. There are hardly any immigrants abusing the system. Each immigrant brings a net benefit to us. We are all immigrants (the UK was once a glacier) originally from Spain and Portugal. We take full advantage of what every country has to offer. What the ConDems are doing shows their implicit dislike of Romanians and Bulgarians. That seems racist to me, and makes it easier for a climate of racism to grow, feeding a right-wing sensibility.
Other countries have welcomed a huge number of people from other EU countries (comparably, didnt Germany get 1m?). I am ashamed of the ConDems who shun people because they want to come here to work when there a re plenty of jobs we want done but don't want to do them ourselves. The ConDems have brought in measures to lower net migration and blame Labour for letting Polish people in. This right-wing "little englander" fear is horrible - to me it is racist.
You are present a string of opinions as facts, so let me join you:
>>coalition it is, just like in nearly every democracy in the world
Untrue. People actively do not want coalition because it creates weak, ineffective government. The main issue I see is turnout, that is the cause of coalition.
>>Labour in 2005 ... a far more divided and dysfunctional government
Untrue. Remember how well off everyone was in 2005 compared to now? How would George Osborne have coped with the 2008 global melt-down?
>>In mature democracies, it is seen as the primary responsibility of the political parties to form a stable coalition representing over 50% of voters.
Untrue. We are a mature democracy and coalition has not been primary in a very, very long time (apart from during the special circs of war, which no longer apply).
>>the Lib Dems came very close to winning control of Haringey in 2010 (it was a 26/30 split).
Untrue. This could be a misprint on your part. It was a 23/34 split. Some of the Lib Dem Cllrs have left due to splits etc since, making the gap even wider today. It was a one-off result on a 60% turnout.
It looks like every Lib Dem will lose their seat in Haringey in March, so it is not as if, having won a load of seats and with four years to demonstrate their skills and talents locally in opposition and nationally in government, people want them.Before, they did not know what the Lib Dems were like. Now they do, they maybe do not like what they see.
I think the Lib Dems gained power in 2010 on a wave of underdog support, a "time for a change" feeling and because people did not like the "feel" of a Labour Government that had been in power continuously for 13 years, unable to protect us against a global failure of capitalism that nobody saw coming.
People did not realise that "new" liberalism had these consequences. They do now. Lib Dems are "new" liberals.
-
-
It’s nice to hear that I am compelling you to raise your game. I suppose that, if I’m totally honest, I’m finding it more frustrating than anything else. It’s like debating with my 16-year-old self, except I spent more time reading the quality press. I too hope that we are both “open to learn and change”, but your tendency to make assertions without evidence isn’t going to convince me, especially as you have also accused me of ‘prejudice’ or bias, apparently without irony, despite my backing up my arguments with independent evidence and your perennial failure to do the same. Perhaps I’ve spent too long flirting with academia, but I have rather high standards when it comes to this sort of thing.
“The Lib Dems claim that they are doing good within the Coalition is hard to accept when you disavow anything your partners do on your joint behalf”
Here is a sentence that sums up rather well the mire of profound misunderstanding that I fear you are coming from. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives created the Coalition Agreement in 2010, which contains material from both parties’ manifestos. As the junior partner the Lib Dems could expect to have less input into the agreement (though they actually punched above their weight). It is simply inevitable, and a truism, that the Lib Dems will therefore support some things in the Coalition programme, and merely be compelled to ‘go along’ with others. That is true of any minor party in any coalition anywhere, and in Germany, say, would not be worthy of comment. Indeed your comments would be ridiculed as showing a failure to understand the key constitutional principles.
As it happens, the Coalition has achieved plenty of things that the Lib Dems can be very proud of. I will point you in the direction of Mark Pack’s delightful infographic, but some of my favourites are fixed-term parliaments, raising the income tax threshold to £10,000, closing 9 billion worth of tax loopholes for the rich, the swathe of civil liberties measures (especially cutting detention without trial) and, not least, our own Ms Featherstone’s Equal Marriage Act.
I would also mention tuition fees. Despite the media hysteria, and my own party’s abject failure to get this point across, the new system is vastly better than Labour’s (which they introduced, let’s not forget, contrary to their manifesto commitment and when they had an overall majority). The new system is effectively a graduate tax, is much more redistributive, and low-income graduates will be much better off.
Then there is Mr Cameron’s Little Black Book of things that the Lib Dems have prevented him implementing, not least insidious internet surveillance.
Yet of course, inevitably, obviously, there are things about the Coalition that do not reflect what policy would be if the Lib Dems had a majority. Some of those things I am rather unhappy about such as the ‘bedroom tax’, which though somewhat *socialist* principle (to each according to their *need* - people usually don’t need a spare room) is somewhat problematic in principle.
The final point to make on this is that THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE. The electorate left us with only one option that created an overall majority. Labour bigwigs made it very clear they wanted to go into opposition, as Harmen has reiterated this week. Minority government is feeble, and very irresponsible at a time of financial crisis. And, as the historians and psephologists pointed out at the time, it would likely have resulted in fresh elections and a Tory majority within a year. How would you have liked those apples?
You then go on to confess that lots of people, apparently including yourself, don’t know enough about politics to understand that the above is true. I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to that problem, though I think we would both agree that it would be excellent if people were more engaged and informed.
Re Romania & Bulgaria – I couldn’t agree more that Theresa May’s message was ugly and corrosive. It seems that you missed the significant criticisms of this levelled by Clegg, Cable among others, as well as their ongoing vetoing of attempts to break our commitments under the Treaty of Rome. Everything that you say thereafter is just intellectually lazy counter-factual tarring of Lib Dems and Tories with the same brush. Lib Dem progressive policy on immigration and multiculturalism is long-standing and oft-repeated. If cognitive dissonance prevents you from assimilating that information then that is unfortunate, but that doesn’t make you any less wrong. *In particular, your accusation that the Lib Dems are somehow prejudiced in favour of white people is disgusting slander of the crassest kind, and you should withdraw it if you wish to retain any credibility*.
It would also help your credibility if you stopped conflating nationality and race.
Haringey election results: In 2010 prior to the election it was 26/30.
Given your claims to cosmopolitanism you are rather ethnocentric in your view of coalitions. As I have repeatedly made clear I am not restricting my view of them to Britain.
Having an old democracy is not the same as having a mature one.
I suppose, in the interests of consensus-building, I would agree that Osborne would have made a terrible hash-up of the 2008 financial crises, and that Brown can take a lot of responsibility for stopping the crises becoming an apocalyptic depression. That said, Brown must also take responsibility for doing nothing about the deregulation that caused the crises in the first place. And I said that *government* was dysfunctional in 2005, not the country – have you read Blair’s memoir? Or McBride’s? I’m not sure that there are any serious Labour commentators who would disagree with that statement any more.
You brought up the Electoral Calculus poll again. You do realise they are just generalising based on national polling, don’t you? It’s been debunked on this site and elsewhere. Lib Dems have a much higher incumbency factor than other parties (you might ask why) and we are polling very well in seats that we hold.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I think Alan Stanton and John McMullan would have a very good chance if they stood as independents.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
