Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Budget proposals cut care homes and day centres
Some of the most vulnerable people in Haringey will be hit hardest of all over the next three years in a raft of cuts as the council is forced to hack another £70million from its budget.
The Journal has the list. Some of it:
Top of the list - close up to three day care centres for people with severe learning difficulties, while Linden House residential home in South Tottenham is also slated for closure.
- streamlining youth services to focus on health and training over leisure opportunities;
- closing Tottenham’s recycling centre, one of only two in the borough;
- closing Wolves Lane Nursery;
- cutting £500,000 funding per year from Alexandra Palace;
- offloading Bruce Castle Museum in Tottenham to a charitable trust;
- stopping the partial funding of Highgate’s Jacksons Lane theatre;
- withdrawing from managing Crouch End’s Haslemere respite centre for children and their carers;
- cleaning the streets less often and according to need;
- hiring out public parks for events more often;
- increasing parking charges;
- cracking down on traffic offences;
- overhauling the parks service to make it more efficient;
- increasing social housing rents (by £2.36 to an average £105.49 per week);
- offering more people housing outside of Haringey;
- withdrawing free advisory services;
- reducing consultation with residents on planning applications;
- creating a “single front door” online for all customer services and transferring as much online as possible.
This is the hardest hit, personified.
Does anyone else think that freezing Council Tax is not necessarily part of the answer?
Tags for Forum Posts: budget, cuts, hardest hit, wolves lane horticultural centre
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
I'm afraid the voting system is only designed to vote for the least worse option. I'd love to be able to vote at all. But the Government doesn't allow me to. No, not because I'm in prison, but worse still, I'm resident in another EU country.
Look FPR, obviously I'd love to be able to vote for other parties, not because as you say, it's dangerous, but because it's democratic. The British electoral system isn't.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Stephen I'm not personally responsible for the AV referendum and I would point out that Liberal Democrats are the smaller member of the Coalition. I happen to regret the way the referendum was put and I agree with you that PR is desirable, something that propably most Liberal Democrats would agree on.
Both PR and FPTP have drawbacks but IMO, on balance, PR means that each citizen's vote is worth the same as every others and is equally relevant. In the so-called "safe" seats, the marginal (economic meaning) effect of any one vote is close to being worthless; whereas in a marginal (political meaning) seat, the parties will fight hard for votes.
The local one-party-state (43 years) is less a reflection of consistent brilliance of the Majority Group – and much more a function of Haringey's boundaries.
-
-
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on
-
"The local one-party-state (43 years) is less a reflection of consistent brilliance of the Majority Group – and much more a function of Haringey's boundaries."
-most crucially it is a function of the lack of viable alternative. Most of us do indeed vote for the least worst. If you think that supporting public, civil society with decent welfare provision and education for all is important you have to vote to keep Tories out. We now know that voting Lib-Dem is just like a vote for the Tories. This is a shame for the many of us who would be interested in alternatives - but all the arguments you make on this thread and many others reinforce that point.
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
