Here at the Barnet Eye, we don't believe in telling people how to vote. We believe in giving you the evidence. What you do with that evidence is up to you. Between now and the 6th of May we are going to run a daily series of important questions. Every one of these questions can be influenced by the way you vote on May 6th. With each of the questions, I'll give a brief summary of the positions of the three main parties in Barnet.
Question No 1.
Barnet Council are currently trying to abolish the warden service for sheltered housing residents. This policy was first introduced when current Council Leader Lynne Hillan held the responsibilty for the social serviceses portfolio. The policy will save the Council approx £400,000 (less than the cost of the salaries of three senior council officials). They will replace the existing on site wardens with a service provided by telephone, where wardens will drive from site to site on request. For every four on site wardens, they will replace them with one mobile warden. In the consultation for the change, over 85% of the residents strongly opposed the changes. The residents have taken the Council to court and had the changes declared illegal. The Council are now trying to reintroduce the changes. Do you believe that stripping the elderly and vulnerable of the security of their on site wardens is a policy you agree with or not?
Barnet Conservatives : Strongly committed to abolishing the Warden Service
Barnet Lib Dems : Strongly committed to retaining the Warden Service
Barnet Labour : Strongly comitted to retaining the Warden Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMEMBER - WHETHER THIS CHANGE HAPPENS IS DOWN TO HOW YOU VOTE ON MAY 6TH
9 comments:
Rog. While they may not be a major party, the Residents' Association of Barnet are going to be fielding a significant number of candidates in the local elections. In the interest of balance do you think it would be good to include their views on these key matters as well?
As a lifelong Conservative, it really saddens me to say this, but I could not possibly vote for any Conservative candidate who supports the inhumane cuts to the warden service. It is not what I joined the party for. It is not what the national party stands for.
If the only way to halt these proposals is to remove from office the architect and supporters of this harebrained scheme, then so be it.
@ Johnny on the Web. You mention the 'Residents' Association of Barnet' (who have no rules and no democracy that I can see - how their candidates are being chosen is a mystery).
How can RogT reflect their views when they have none? They boast that if they were miraculously elected the Councillors would not be bound by any election promises or internal decisions as there would be 'no whip'.
The only thing that many of them seem to have in common is a chip on their shoulder.
@Johnny on the Web: here is what Vicky (victim57) has to say about them too
"It's fair to say that I wouldn't stand as a Residents' Association of Barnet (RAB) candidate, because I think their platform is too woolly "
...
"On the woolly charge, this is what I mean: "we will dump the concept and practice of 'easyCouncil'".
I would dearly love to dump easyCouncil but it's not clear from this brief statement what it is about easyCouncil you don't like. Is it the fact that it's being done as a cost-cutting exercise (because I don't like that)? Or because it proposes to charge people extra for unspecified but possibly key services (I don't like that)? Is it the fact that they want to outsource a lot of the services, which, if it means cheaper services, usually means a lower-paid workforce doing the work (I don't like that)?
Do you see what I am getting at? What is it about easyCouncil that you don't like? What would you propose in its place? My answer would be: cut the unnecessary expenditures, stop wasting money on expensive consultants who just want to outsource and privatise, join with other local authorities to demand more money from central government to defend public services, mobilise the community in a political battle for that..."
Johnny on the Web,
I'd be perfectly happy for a member of the Residents party to leave a comment, but as I understand it they don't have a common platform so what one candidate believes wouldn't necessarily reflect other candidates.
I will leave any comments up here from anyone so long as they are on topic. That gives the greens, residents, monster loonys etc an opportunity to have their say.
Please bear in mind that I don't have the resources of a large news organisation who have time to phone every possible candidate. That is why blogger works well, because people can add to the conversation, pots links etc.
@ Matt Cool Oh Yeah
Only problem is they don't have any members as they aren't a democratic party. They are run by one or two self selected people who can't be removed by anyone, so far as I can see.
But you are also right that they don't actual have an agreed plan of action if they were in power and, even if they did, they have said that none of the Councillors elected on that platform would be bound to it!
Independent or Anarchic - you choose!
Dan et all,
Just for the purposes of clarity, the Mattcoolohyeah comment was left by me. I hadn't realised that my son had logged onto blogspot and he was logged on when I left the comment.
Rog
ha ha ha!
How can we be sure your soon isn't writing your blog posts? ;)
Dan,
If Matthew had written it you'd know because it would be more interesting and better written
Post a Comment