Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
IMPORTANT - consultation deadline today.
If you have not read or had a chance to comment on Haringey's latest budget proposals, today is your last chance to have a say.
Closure of day-care centres for the elderly , moving Muswell Hill library, cuts cuts cuts - let them know what you think.
One point of interest - if they chose to raise the council tax by the permitted 2% it would raise £1.6 million, but would mean losing £1million in government funding.
No mention of cutting, trimming or otherwise lowering the cost of Haringey People - and this consultation has also been printed up in glossy thick brochures for distribution to libraries etc. although interestingly, not to individual residences.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Wodjacallim on
-
In the general scheme of things, if Haringey opted for the higher spend, it would add about £24 to the average Council Tax Bill which is peanuts.
A Council has the right to determine its own spend level which is the whole point of Local Government.
What is interesting is the Government chooses a response which penalises the people of Haringey for a decision its Council is entitled to take in the course of its business. The Tory strategy for the General Election must be to threaten to increase taxes in Haringey until we vote for them.
We need to bear this in mind at the next election for the Mayor of London which the next time an elected Tory might represent Haringey.
-
-
A paper copy (not glossy) was put through my door on Christmas Eve with a covering letter from Cllr Peter Morton, Cabinet Member for Health & Wellbeing. The letter referred to a Freepost envelope for my response; alas this was missing. I expect this generous Christmas present was due to my mother attending one of the few remaining day centres in the borough. Unimpressed of Harringay ...
I have responded directly to Cllr Morton via e-mail. I have had problems with the "Have Your Say" link on the Council website and know others who have experienced similar difficulties. Please do not let this put anyone off making an input into this consultation.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
If people haven't seen it, I've attached a PDF file with the passionate plea put out by young people campaigning against cuts in the Youth Service - and in particular the Centre in Bruce Grove Tottenham.
Most of the cuts proposed across the Council are appalling. But to my mind, made far worse by the endless spin - delusion? sheer willed ignorance? - put our by Claire Kober and parroted by her chums, that the cuts will make us stronger and better.
Please read the young people's account of the untruths and half truths told about the previous cuts to our Youth Services. For instance about the shameful pretence by a few staff and councillors that Bruce Grove Centre was open when it wasn't.
Though I don't expect anyone to take something on trust. Or to automatically accept the views of people on one side in an argument. So I would challenge Cllr Ann Waters, ("cabinet" councillor for children & young people's services) and Cllr Claire Kober the Dear Leader, to come on Harringay Online and rebut the detailed points made in this document; giving us measured and factual evidence.
If they can.
* * * * *
- Attachments:
-
-
BruceGroveYouthCentreNotSafe.pdf, 1.2 MB
-
-
-
Please respond to the consultation TODAY and get involved in the campaigns that have sprung up.
This attack on our vital local public services is the worst ever proposed and the Council's proposals to cut £70m over the next 3 years are shocking and will have a devastating impact on the most vulnerable in our Borough.
I don't understand why the Council tax can't be increased for those who could afford to - It hasn't been increased for years and in the meantime with inflation, and cuts from Central Government the budget has been eroded.
The proposed cuts will lead to massive cuts to frontline services and jobs (a quarter of Council jobs to be axed, and threats to privatise frontline services). Proposals include:
* Closure of the remaining Elders and Learning Difficulties Residential homes
* Closure of day centres across adults, including a centre for elderly suffering from dementia
* Cuts to Children’s Centres
* Huge cuts to Youth Services & Youth Offending teams
* Redundancies of up to 633 staff across the council
* Potential privatisation in the parks service, and in parking
* And the list goes on….A lobby of the Council and a demo are planned and numerous campaign groups have sprung up and they are all working together through Haringey Alliance For Public Services:
-
-
I think you will find Government has effectively capped Council Tax. If the Council increases spend, then it reduces Central Government Grants and Council Tax payers are penalised by having to pay much more. So for example, if the Council increases spend by £1.6M, Government reduces grants by £1m meaning the Council Tax Payer forks out £2.6M for a £1.6M increase in spend. Nice !!!
Councillor Kober is caught in the middle and there is not much she can do given the funding constraints placed upon Haringey which in effect means a reduced level of service. Or is there?
The only way round this constraint is Haringey making savings where it can. I think Haringey does not give value for money and a lot is wasted. For example, frequently when there is a road repair by a utility company, the repair is poor and becomes a pot hole. Haringey then spend tax payers money to repair it when they should have checked the work and insist the utility made it good. This must cost millions across the borough.
Haringey is probably not delivering good value else where either. This wastage, if it could easily be identified, could go some way to resolving the issues. The real problem is there is no transparency since the audit commission was abandoned, the job now goes to the Big Five. The Big Five as far as I know do no not publish league tables of council unit costs (like cost per planning application, per bin emptied, cost per complaint etc.) As a result, it is difficult, if not impossible to ascertain where improvements can be made.
Layer on top of that Council Tax Payers are supposed to do their bit to reduce George Osborne's Government debt which should be done nationally via income tax or VAT. What better than to penalise rogue non Tory areas like Haringey? This is win-win situation for George Osborne, voters for other parties pay the national debt and he gets to keep income tax down at every else's expense.
The Haringey Alliance for Public Services should direct their attention to Westminster, that is where the real problem lies.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
On top of that Peter, any proposed increase of above 2% must go to a local referendum, the outcome of which could not be guaranteed and the cost would no doubt eat up a large part of the increased income. There is also a rather sneaky bit in the legislation that means if there is a no vote, you have to pay to re-bill the entire local population. So, if you get a yes vote, you pay for the referendum AND get grant clawed back. If you get a no vote you get no council tax increase AND charge the local population for the privilege of voting by re-billing. Unsurprisingly, I know of no local authority that has held a referendum.
-
-
1.99% increase, then, Michael? Every little would have helped to reduce the pain.
What we seem to see are councillors who about to agree, and senior officers who are about to inflict real pain; real hurt. But appear to show little or no indication that they understand what they are about to do.
While at the same time they are making promises and pressing ahead with dubious schemes which are truly tales "told by an idiot", full of spin and foolishness, signifying nothing.
-
-
You'd still lose grant In proportion to the increase Alan. Only a large increase will start to even bite into the millions lost in government grant.
By the way, the officers recommend what needs to be done to deliver a balanced budget: that is what they are employed to do. The politicians decide whether they wish to set a balanced budget.
-
-
I'd invite HoL members to Google "Why set a 1.99% council tax increase" and read about some of the councils which are doing this and their reasons. Then consider why the Kobertories didn't offer and explain this as an option to be consulted on - as many other councils obviously did.
I also don't accept that if we can't save everything we shouldn't try to save anything.
Kober and her chums are making - or at least going along with - basic changes which would be extremely hard to reverse. Assuming that they actually want to rebuild the services they plan to destroy - selling off land and buildings; sacking people with knowledge and experience who run them.
Regrets? They have a few. But then again they're hardly mentioned. Instead we have barely concealed glee at the "landmark moment because it ushers in a new era of change in the way that we do things". (Quote from Nick Walkley Chief Executive. Printed in large type at the top of page 7 of the 2015-18 Corporate Plan.)
-
-
The era of change seems to be all about "Barnetisation" of Harungey. This is a several step process whereby:
- The Council is effectively managed by highly paid consultants costing a fortune.
- The consultants promote the notion of "transformation", a posh word for change.
- The changes are essentially service cuts and outsourcing to stay within the budget limit.
- Little or no thought is given to improving processes to deliver more and better services at a lower cost. This is the real challenge.
Barnet was held as wonderful example of this approach but the but there is a lot of scepticism about whether real improvements were made. Read Mr Mustard's Blog. Very interesting and entertaining.
Or am I just being cynical?
-
-
I wouldn't say cynical, Patrick. More ultra-cautious.
I voted against Nick Walkley's appointment. When he arrived he made efforts to engage with so-called "backbench" councillors. This included arranging walks round wards and talking to us. He seemed to be intelligent, to listen, and to have some useful insights into local problems.
Mr Walkley made one or two positive reforms - such as getting rid of Council decisions being taken at a thoroughly undemocratic and probably illegal body called a "Leader's Conference".
So, expecting the best from people I don't know, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and "parked" the dire warnings I'd heard from contacts in Barnet. If you've read the arguments on HoL at the time, you'll see the point of view that a Chief Executive is simply a civil servant and will carry out the wishes of the Majority Party and Cllr Claire Kober.
It turned out that this was just window-dressing. We now have what I call a two-boroughs-one-Barnet policy. Our Council appears to be run by ex-Barneteers employed as consultants and interims. (With the exception of one director, who described council-owned homes as "a subsidised housing product" at a meeting I attended and noted.)
After the Tottenham riot in August 2011 we saw some of the very best of local Government in Haringey. Council staff, other public and voluntary agencies, some commercial companies, and many volunteers all rose to the occasion. Some people magnificently so. An outstanding example was the Community Assistance Centre, set up almost immediately after the riot, in the Tottenham Green Leisure Centre. As a councillor I was very proud of our staff there.
In the following weeks, essential work was done. For example, the practical tasks of repairing and reinstating damage. Transport for London, working with our Council repaired the roadway in High Road Tottenham. The burnt-out Bruce Grove Post Office was relocated with the help of Post Office Counters; and Business in the Community, As were some other businesses. Council staff, together with the office of David Lammy MP and many others, gave help to traders - for example in pursuing insurance claims. Other agencies gave valuable assistance with this.
But as the months passed the drive petered out. To me at least, it was clear that the leadership of Haringey Council was totally clueless in both understanding and tackling the longer term causes of the riot. Nor, it seems did other bodies involved propose any helpful new ideas.
We did have one very big destructive idea brought to us by Stuart Lipton, a property developer sent by Boris Johnson. In accordance with the principle of Maslow's hammer, he prescribed property development as the solution to our ills. (Leading to the idea that Council Housing is a cause of riots.)
On your point about the need to "deliver more and better services at a lower cost" I agree with the aim but wonder if we'd agree on the means. (I'm a fan of John Seddon's systems approach. He argues persuasively that focus on reducing costs can lead to increased costs.)
If you mean volunteers, and agencies with zero hours contracts, then we will disagree. Although the alternative service models proposed by the Kobley-Walkber double act seem astonishingly vague. A pub landlord strategy for sunshine and happiness, but lacking Al Murray's hard detail.
-
-
Hi Alan
You give a fascinating insight into the Haringey modus operandum, I like it.
On improving services, I did not mean volunteering or zero hours contracts. What I meant was improving services is to look at the processes where large amounts of money are spent and improve them.
In any large organisation there will be process failures - but Haringey seems to be quite insane. It repeats the same mistakes time an again and getting the same unfavourable result every time.
Let me give you an example. Haringey spends millions of pounds on road repairs every year. Normally these are caused by utilities digging up roads and failing to do make good properly. So the earth under the tarmac starts to sink because it is not properly compacted, then a dip in the road appears and then then a pot hole as the tarmac cracks. This type of work is guaranteed for a year and any dips should be noticeable at twelve months. You only have to look round Crouch End to see what I mean.
However, I think Haringey does not check the work prior to the guarantee expiring, so as a result Haringey picks up the bill to correct the faulty workmanship.
I am quite convinced while the Environmental Services Director, Lyn Garner?, grandstands over the regeneration of Tottenham along with senior Councillor. In the meantime, the Environmental Services Department wastes a lot of money and fails to perform its statutory duties satisfactorily in relation to Planning, Building Control and Highways.
I can provide lots more examples.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
